Table 1.
PICOS Characteristics of included studies that evaluated SDM tools for cancer screening.
| Study ID, Country |
Study Design | SDM Tool/s Evaluated | Target Group | Comparator | Knowledge | Decision Conflict | Readiness to Decide | Risk Perception |
Satisfaction with DA | Screening Uptake/Test Ordered | Intention to Screen | Decisional Regret | SDM Process | Self-Efficacy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allen 2010 [46], United States |
RCT | Computer-tailored decision aid with personalized risk assessment tool | V | Usual care | ⇡ MA | ⇡ MA | ⇡ | . | ⇡ | . | . | . | . | ⇡ |
| Barry 2015 [47], UnitedStates |
Before–after | “The PSA test: Is it right for you?” DA | NV | NC | . | . | ⇡ | . | . | . | ⇣ MA | . | ⇡ | . |
| Brenner 2016 [48], United States |
RCT | Spanish (OPCIONES) and English CHOICE | V | Food safety video | ⇞ MA | . | . | . | . | ⇞ | ⇞ MA | . | ⇞ | . |
| Cadet 2021 [49], United States |
Before–after | “Should I continue having mammograms? For women aged 75–84 years,” DA | V | NC | ⇡ | ↮ MA | . | . | ⇡ | . | . | . | . | . |
| Eden 2015 [50], United States |
Before–after | Mobile application “Mammopad” DA | NV | NC | . | ⇡ | . | . | . | . | ↮ | . | . | ⇡ |
| Gokce 2017 [51], United States |
Before–after | ACS (American Cancer Society) DA | NV | NC | ⇡ | ⇡ | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| Halley 2015 [45], United States |
RCT | Web-based DESI (the decision support intervention) | NV | DVD-first DESI | ⇡ MA | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| Hoffman 2017 [52], United States |
RCT | Video-based PtDA | V | Attention control video | ↑ MA | ↑ | . | . | . | ↮ | ↮ | . | . | . |
| Hoffman 2018 [53], United States |
Before–after | “Lung Cancer Screening: Is it Right for Me?” Web -based DA |
V | NC | ⇡ | ⇡ | . | . | . | . | ⇡ MA | . | ⇡ | . |
| Housten 2020 [54], United States |
RCT (3-arm) |
Animated video DA and status-video DA | V | Audio–booklet DA | ↮ MA | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| Lau 2015 [55], United States |
Before–after | “Lung Cancer Screening: Should I get screened?” web- based DA |
NV | NC | ⇡ | ⇡ | . | . | ⇡ | . | ⇡ MA | . | . | . |
| Lau 2021, United States [56] |
Before–after | Modified “Lung Cancer Screening: Should I get screened?” web-based DA | V | NC | ⇡ | ⇡ | . | . | ⇡ ** | . | . | . | . | . |
| Lepore 2012, United States [57] |
RCT | “Prostate Cancer: Your Life-You Decide” pamphlet with tailored telephone education | V | Attention control | ↑ MA | ↑ MA | . | . | . | ↮ * | ↮ MA | . | ↑ | . |
| Lewis 2015, United States [58] |
RCT | PSA (prostate-specific antigen)-based DESI + SMA | NV | SMA invitation | ⇟ MA | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| Lewis 2018, United States [59] |
RCT | ‘‘Making a Decision about Colon Cancer Screening” paper-based DA |
NV | Attention control | ↑ MA | . | ↑ | . | . | . | ↑ MA | . | ↑ | . |
| Manners 2020, Australia [60] |
Before–after (quasi) |
PtDA + PLCOm2012 risk estimates |
V | NC | . | ↮ MA | . | . | . | . | ↮ MA | . | . | . |
| Miller 2018 [61], United States |
RCT | mPATH-CRC DA | V | Control program | . | . | . | . | . | ↑ | ↑ MA | . | ↑ | . |
| Perestelo-Perez 2019 [62], Spain | RCT | Web-based DA | V | Usual care | ↑ MA | ↑ | . | . | . | . | ↑ MA | . | . | . |
| Reuland 2018 [63], United States |
Before–after | Video-based DA | NV | NC | ⇡ | . | . | . | ⇡ ** | . | . | . | . | . |
| Ruparel 2019 [64], United Kingdom |
RCT | Information film + information booklet DA |
V | Booklet alone | ⇡ | ⇡ MA | . | . | ⇡ | . | . | . | . | . |
| Rubel 2010 [65], United States |
Solomon four- group |
CDC-developed PCa screening DA |
V | Usual care | ↑ | ↮ | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| Salkeld 2016 [66], Australia |
RCT | Annalisa software-personalized decision support tool |
V | Annalisa fixed attribute | . | ↑ | . | . | . | . | ↑ | . | ↑ | . |
| Schapira 2019 [67], United States |
RCT | BCS (breast cancer screening)–PtDA | V | Usual care | ↑ | ↮ MA | . | ↮ | . | ↮ * | ↮ | ↮ | . | . |
| Schroy 2011 [68], United States |
RCT (3-arm) |
Web-based DA + “Your Disease Risk (YDR)” |
V | Generic lifestyle website | ⇟ MA | . | . | . | . | ⇟ | ⇟ | . | ⇟ | . |
| Schwartz 2019 [69], United States |
RCT | Quantitative DA | V | Verbal DA | . | ↮ MA | . | ↑ | . | ↮ * | ↮ | . | . | . |
| Sepucha 2022 [70], United States |
RCT | Decision worksheet + telephone session |
V | Usual care | . | ↑ MA | . | . | . | ↑ * | . | . | ↑ | . |
| Sferra 2021 [71], United States |
RCT | Option grid decision support tool |
V | Shouldiscreen.com DA | ⇟ | . | . | . | . | . | . | ⇟ | ↮ | . |
| Sheridan 2012 [72], United States |
RCT | Video-based DA + patient coaching + provider education |
NV | Highway safety attention control | ⇟ | . | . | . | . | ⇞ | ⇞ MA | . | ↮ | . |
| Sheridan 2016 [73], United States |
RCT (4-arm) |
Framed decision support sheet | NV | Qualitative decision support sheet | ↮ MA | . | . | ↮ | . | . | ↮ | . | . | ↓ |
| Smith 2010 [74], Australia |
RCT (3-arm) |
Booklet + DVD-based DA | V | Standard booklet | ↑ MA | ↑ MA | . | . | . | ↑ | ↑ | . | ↑ | ↮ |
| Taylor 2013 [75], United States |
RCT (3-arm) |
PCa Web-based DA | NV | Usual care | ⇡ MA | ⇡ MA | . | . | . | ↮ | ⇡ | . | . | . |
| van Vugt 2010 [76], Netherlands |
Before–after | Leaflet PRI (personalized risk indicator) | V | NC | ⇡ | . | . | . | . | . | ⇡ MA | . | ⇡ | . |
| Volk 2020 [77], United States |
RCT | Video- or DVD-based patient decision aid | V | Standard material | ↑ MA | ↑ MA | ↑ | . | . | . | ↮ MA | . | ↑ | . |
| Williams 2013 [78], United States |
RCT (4-arm) |
Printed-based DA | NV | Usual care | ↑ MA | ↑ | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
Abbreviations: DA = decision aid; RCT: randomized controlled trial; V = vulnerable populations; NV = non-vulnerable populations; ML = mixed-literacy population; NC = no comparator; SMA: shared medical appointment; MA = meta-analyzed. Symbols: . = not reported; ↮ = not statistically significant; ↓ = reduced outcome measure with low risk of bias in most domains; ⇣ = reduced outcome measure with unclear to high risk of bias in at least two domains; ↑ = in favor of SDM tool with low risk of bias in most domains; ⇡ = in favor of SDM tool with at unclear or high risk of bias in most domains; ⇞ = in favor of SDM tool with high risk of bias in at least one of the domains; ⇟ = reduced outcome measure with high risk of bias in at least one domain; * = patient–clinician discussions; ** = DA acceptability/preferred the DA/viewed DA as useful.