The use of a risk assessment and decision support tool (CRISP) compared with usual care in general practice to increase risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Dowty, James G
De Abreu Lourenço, Richard
Ait Ouakrim, Driss
Jenkins, Mark A
Emery, Jon D
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
MetadataShow full item record
Walker, J. G., Macrae, F., Winship, I., Oberoi, J., Saya, S., Milton, S., Bickerstaffe, A., et al. (2018). The use of a risk assessment and decision support tool (CRISP) compared with usual care in general practice to increase risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.. Trials, 19 (1), 397. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2764-7
BACKGROUND: Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence rates of colorectal cancer worldwide. In Australia there is significant unwarranted variation in colorectal cancer screening due to low uptake of the immunochemical faecal occult blood test, poor identification of individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer, and over-referral of individuals at average risk for colonoscopy. Our pre-trial research has developed a novel Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) tool, which could be used to implement precision screening in primary care. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II multi-site individually randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool in primary care. METHODS: This trial aims to test whether a standardised consultation using the CRISP tool in general practice (the CRISP intervention) increases risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening compared to control participants who receive standardised information on cancer prevention. Patients between 50 and 74 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner for any reason, will be invited into the trial. A total of 732 participants will be randomised to intervention or control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice. The primary outcome (risk-appropriate screening at 12 months) will be measured using baseline data for colorectal cancer risk and objective health service data to measure screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes will include participant cancer risk perception, anxiety, cancer worry, screening intentions and health service utilisation measured at 1, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. DISCUSSION: This trial tests a systematic approach to implementing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening in primary care, based on an individual's absolute risk, using a state-of-the-art risk assessment tool. Trial results will be reported in 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12616001573448p . Registered on 14 November 2016.
Humans, Colorectal Neoplasms, Prognosis, Risk Assessment, Risk Factors, Predictive Value of Tests, Decision Support Techniques, Time Factors, Aged, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Victoria, Female, Male, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic, Early Detection of Cancer, General Practice
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2764-7
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/279648
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Licence URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/