Promoting shared decision-making in colorectal cancer screening in primary care: A cluster randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION: In Switzerland, primary care physicians (PCP) prescribe colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rather than offering a choice between colonoscopy and faecal occult blood test (FOBT). This study evaluated a training program promoting shared decision-making for CRC screening. METHODS: PCP from a research network were randomized 1:1 into intervention or control. The intervention group received study materials, patient decision aids, evidence summary, FOBT sample kit, and personalized feedback on CRC screening practices. PCP documented CRC screening decisions of 40 consecutive patients (ages 50-75) four months post-intervention. The control group received no materials before data collection. RESULTS: Of 110 PCP randomized, 83 (76%) collected data on 3,171 patients (mean age 62, 50% women). PCP in the intervention group were more likely than controls to have at least one patient tested or planning FOBT (84% vs. 56%; unadjusted RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.13 to 2.04). In a sensitivity analysis restricted to 62 PCP who participated in a previous data collection, 72% (21/29) already met the primary outcome in the intervention group at baseline and 49% (16/33) in the control group (RR: 1.49; 95% CI: 0.98 to 2.28). When contrasting the change within PCP from the 2017 and 2018 data collection, there was no significant increase in proportion of PCP who met primary outcome between intervention and control group, while it might have increased the proportion of PCP already prescribing FOBT to prescribe it to more of their patients. CONCLUSION: A mailed intervention increased FOBT prescriptions, but selection bias may have influenced results.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2026-06-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0351069
Primary Topic
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Promoting shared decision-making in colorectal cancer screening in primary care: A cluster randomized controlled trial

Adrian Rohrbasser, Jean‐Luc Bulliard, Marc-Andrea Janggen, Reto Auer et al.
PLoS ONE
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
article

Promoting shared decision-making in colorectal cancer screening in primary care: A cluster randomized controlled trial

Adrian Rohrbasser, Jean‐Luc Bulliard, Marc-Andrea Janggen, Reto Auer, Kali Tal, Tamara Scharf, Yonas Martin, Nikola Biller-Andorno, Kevin Selby
article en

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In Switzerland, primary care physicians (PCP) prescribe colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rather than offering a choice between colonoscopy and faecal occult blood test (FOBT). This study evaluated a training program promoting shared decision-making for CRC screening. METHODS: PCP from a research network were randomized 1:1 into intervention or control. The intervention group received study materials, patient decision aids, evidence summary, FOBT sample kit, and personalized feedback on CRC screening practices. PCP documented CRC screening decisions of 40 consecutive patients (ages 50-75) four months post-intervention. The control group received no materials before data collection. RESULTS: Of 110 PCP randomized, 83 (76%) collected data on 3,171 patients (mean age 62, 50% women). PCP in the intervention group were more likely than controls to have at least one patient tested or planning FOBT (84% vs. 56%; unadjusted RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.13 to 2.04). In a sensitivity analysis restricted to 62 PCP who participated in a previous data collection, 72% (21/29) already met the primary outcome in the intervention group at baseline and 49% (16/33) in the control group (RR: 1.49; 95% CI: 0.98 to 2.28). When contrasting the change within PCP from the 2017 and 2018 data collection, there was no significant increase in proportion of PCP who met primary outcome between intervention and control group, while it might have increased the proportion of PCP already prescribing FOBT to prescribe it to more of their patients. CONCLUSION: A mailed intervention increased FOBT prescriptions, but selection bias may have influenced results.

PLoS ONEVol. 21(6)
University of Bern (CH), University Hospital of Bern (CH), Institute for Biomedical Engineering (CH), Centre universitaire de médecine générale et santé publique, Lausanne (CH)
National Science Foundation, Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Swiss Cancer Research Foundation
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.