A review conducted by Cochrane researchers has found that providing risk information to patients based on their own personal risk rather than average risks helps improve their ability to make genuinely informed choices about undergoing disease screening.
The authors reviewed data from studies, largely on cancer screens, in which patients were provided with personalised risk estimates.
The benefits of screening are not clear-cut. For example, screening can help detect cancer early, leading to successful treatment, but it can also lead to unnecessary treatment and anxiety either in healthy people or in those who would never have become seriously ill. Therefore, many health care providers are interested in finding approaches that help each patient make an informed decision about whether they want to have a screening test, instead of simply encouraging all patients to undergo screening. It is thought that risk information tailored to individuals, depending on factors including age and behaviours such as smoking, may be better understood by patients than information based on average risks.
Data from three of the studies showed that 45% of those who received personalised risk information made informed choices, compared to 20% in a control group who received generic risk information. An informed decision was considered as one that was consistent between knowledge, attitude and choice. "There is strong evidence from these three trials that incorporating personalised risk estimates into communications about screening programmes can enhance informed decision-making by patients," said lead researcher Adrian Edwards of the Cochrane Institute of Primary Care and Public Health at Cardiff University in Cardiff, Wales. "However, we need to be careful about generalising from these results, which are drawn largely from studies in breast and colorectal cancer screening."
Most high-risk patients opted to take the tests. Overall, however, patients who were given more detailed personalised risk information were less likely to take screening tests. According to the researchers, informed decision-making may need to be incorporated into health objectives to ensure that health goals are not compromised.
"For the healthcare provider, it may be satisfactory to have had a discussion with a patient about the pros and cons of screening for cervical cancer, even if she decides not to undergo screening," said Edwards. "If this outcome was considered as 'adherent to health guidelines', then improvements in care could be achieved without falling foul of requirements for governance, audit, and payment targets."