Trial Outcomes & Findings for Doctors' Understanding of Survival Statistics (NCT NCT00981019)
NCT ID: NCT00981019
Last Updated: 2011-08-15
Results Overview
The aim of the study was to learn how different medical cancer screening statistics would influence doctors' recommendation behavior and their effectiveness judgments of screening tests. For that reason the online survey study presented physicians with four different medical statistics (e.g., 5-year survival) within four successive scenarios and asked after each scenario whether they would recommend the screening to a (hypothetical) patient given the data. Options to answer are: Definitely yes, Probably yes, Probably no, Definitely no, Can't decide.
COMPLETED
778 participants
25 minutes (mean duration of the survey)
2011-08-15
Participant Flow
Sample frame is the Harris Interactive Physician Panel Harris Interactive AG will draw a simple random sample U.S. internal and family medicine physicians from their Physician Panel and e-mail them an invitation and a link to the online-survey
Inclusion criteria: Physicians in internal, family and general medicine. Exclusion criteria: All physicians other than internal, family and general medicine physicians are excluded from participation because these usually are not offering cancer screening to there patients in the setting of primary care
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Mortality*Incidence*5-year Survival*Early Detection Rate
The study-conducted as an online survey study-investigated the influence that different medical statistics such as 5-year survival rates would have on physicians' recommendation behavior for screening and on their judgment of screening's effectiveness. The survey introduced hypothetical scenarios in which a hypothetical patient was requesting a physician's advice on whether to have a screening test. To make that decision the participants (=physicians) were presented with different statistics and then asked if they would recommend the screening to the hypothetical patient and how effective they think the screening would be in reducing cancer mortality. The online survey did not ask any sensitive data.
|
|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
778
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
301
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
477
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Mortality*Incidence*5-year Survival*Early Detection Rate
The study-conducted as an online survey study-investigated the influence that different medical statistics such as 5-year survival rates would have on physicians' recommendation behavior for screening and on their judgment of screening's effectiveness. The survey introduced hypothetical scenarios in which a hypothetical patient was requesting a physician's advice on whether to have a screening test. To make that decision the participants (=physicians) were presented with different statistics and then asked if they would recommend the screening to the hypothetical patient and how effective they think the screening would be in reducing cancer mortality. The online survey did not ask any sensitive data.
|
|---|---|
|
Overall Study
Did not respond
|
65
|
|
Overall Study
Did not match target population
|
94
|
|
Overall Study
Inadvertent exclusion
|
239
|
|
Overall Study
Hit the survey after closure
|
79
|
Baseline Characteristics
Doctors' Understanding of Survival Statistics
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Mortality*Incidence*5-year Survival*Early Detection Rate
n=778 Participants
The study-conducted as an online survey study-investigated the influence that different medical statistics such as 5-year survival rates would have on physicians' recommendation behavior for screening and on their judgment of screening's effectiveness. The survey introduced hypothetical scenarios in which a hypothetical patient was requesting a physician's advice on whether to have a screening test. To make that decision the participants (=physicians) were presented with different statistics and then asked if they would recommend the screening to the hypothetical patient and how effective they think the screening would be in reducing cancer mortality. The online survey did not ask any sensitive data.
|
|---|---|
|
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
|
778 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Age Continuous
|
49 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.6 • n=5 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
158 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
620 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Region of Enrollment
United States
|
778 participants
n=5 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 25 minutes (mean duration of the survey)Population: We calculated that a sample size of 300 physicians was needed to have 90% power to detect differences of 20% or higher in the proportion of respondents correctly answering questions about the different cancer statistics (2-sided alpha of .05).
The aim of the study was to learn how different medical cancer screening statistics would influence doctors' recommendation behavior and their effectiveness judgments of screening tests. For that reason the online survey study presented physicians with four different medical statistics (e.g., 5-year survival) within four successive scenarios and asked after each scenario whether they would recommend the screening to a (hypothetical) patient given the data. Options to answer are: Definitely yes, Probably yes, Probably no, Definitely no, Can't decide.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Mortality*Incidence*5-year Survival*Early Detection Rate
n=301 Participants
The survey introduced four different cancer statistics in scenarios about 2 different screening tests. To mask the fact that all statistics stemmed from prostate cancer screening, screening in the scenarios were labeled "X" and "Z". The survey then introduced test Z, whose effectiveness was described in terms of a reduction of cancer mortality. After responding to the series of outcome questions about test Z, physicians received additional information on the cancer incidence, again followed by the outcome questions. In the next scenario, the survey introduced test X, whose effectiveness was described in terms of an increase in 5-year survival and, in the next step, with additional information on early detection rates. After each step, doctors had to respond to the same outcome questions as they had for test Z. Please not, information on test X and test Z were randomly presented to control for order effects.
|
|---|---|
|
Number of Physicians (=Participants) Recommending the Screening
|
301 participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 25 minutes (mean duration of the survey)Physicians are faced with four different medical statistics about the effect of screening (e.g., 5-year survival) within four successive scenarios and after each scenario asked whether they assume the screening to be beneficial given the statistical information. Options to answer are: yes, no, can't decide. If yes, then participants are further asked to describe this benefit by the following categories: Very large, large, moderate, small, very small.
Outcome measures
Outcome data not reported
Adverse Events
Mortality*Incidence*5-year Survival*Early Detection Rate
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Dr. Odette Wegwarth
Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Harding Center for Risk Literacy
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place