Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Articles

Effects of a Decision Support Intervention on Decisional Conflict Associated with Microsatellite Instability Testing

Michael J. Hall, Sharon L. Manne, Gary Winkel, Daniel S. Chung, David S. Weinberg and Neal J. Meropol
Michael J. Hall
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sharon L. Manne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gary Winkel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel S. Chung
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David S. Weinberg
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Neal J. Meropol
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0685 Published February 2011
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Decision support to facilitate informed consent is increasingly important for complicated medical tests. Here, we test a theoretical model of factors influencing decisional conflict in a study examining the effects of a decision support aid that was designed to assist patients at high risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (CRC) deciding whether to pursue the microsatellite instability (MSI) test.

Methods: Participants were 239 CRC patients at high familial risk for a genetic mutation who completed surveys before and after exposure to the intervention. Half of the sample was assigned to the CD-ROM aid and half received a brief description of the test. Structural equation modeling was employed to examine associations among the intervention, knowledge, pros and cons to having MSI testing, self-efficacy, preparedness, and decisional conflict.

Results: The goodness of fit for the model was acceptable [FIML, full information maximum likelihood, χ2 (df = 280) = 392.24; P = 0.00]. As expected, the paths to decisional conflict were significant for postintervention pros of MSI testing (t = −2.43; P < 0.05), cons of MSI testing (t = 2.78; P < 0.05), and preparedness (t = −7.27; P < 0.01). The intervention impacted decisional conflict by increasing knowledge about the MSI test and knowledge exerted its effects on decisional conflict by increasing preparedness to make a decision about the test and by increases in perceived benefits of having the test.

Conclusion: Increasing knowledge, preparedness, and perceived benefits of undergoing the MSI test facilitate informed decision making for this test.

Impact: Understanding mechanisms underlying health decisions is critical for improving decisional support. Individuals with Lynch syndrome have an elevated lifetime risk of CRC. Risk of Lynch syndrome may be assessed with a tumor-based screening test (MSI testing or immunohistochemical tissue staining). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(2); 249–54. ©2011 AACR.

Introduction

Individuals with positive MSI or IHC (immunohistochemical) results have a high likelihood of a germline genetic mutation consistent with Lynch syndrome. The Bethesda criteria distinguish important elements of personal, family, and clinical history to guide providers considering offering Lynch screening (1).

Informed consent is routinely obtained before DNA-based cancer predisposition genetic testing. Informed consent should educate patients about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of tests and prepare them to make the decision about testing (2–4). Provision of sufficient information is important before microsatellite instability (MSI) testing. First, MSI testing may indicate the need for further genetic counseling and germline mutation analysis. Second, the outcome of Lynch testing may have implications for family members. Finally, genetic risk information can be difficult to understand and thus adequate preparation about family risk for cancers associated with Lynch syndrome is necessary. Unfortunately, research suggests that colorectal cancer (CRC) patients have little knowledge of the MSI test (5).

Decision support aids (DA) have been shown to facilitate decision making in a variety of clinical contexts including cancer-related genetic testing (6–8). Decisional conflict is a key construct from the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (9), and reducing decisional conflict is a primary goal for DAs (10). Most DAs target decisional conflict reduction by addressing contributors to uncertainty including providing information about benefits and risks for options. Nonetheless, little is known about the mechanisms whereby DAs affect decisional conflict. A greater understanding of mechanisms may have implications for development of more effective DAs.

The current study tests a theoretical model (Fig. 1) of factors contributing to decisional conflict about having the MSI test. The most consistent effects of DAs are upon improved knowledge about test purpose and test outcomes (6, 7,11, 12). Therefore, we proposed that the primary influence of the DA would be on knowledge about the MSI and IHC tests. We propose 4 mediating influences on the association between knowledge and conflict: perceived benefits of MSI testing, perceived barriers to MSI testing, preparedness for making the decision, and self-efficacy. Greater knowledge is predicted to lower decisional conflict by helping patients feel more informed about the test's benefits and barriers/risks (13, 14). In line with previous literature, improved knowledge would increase satisfaction with the level of decision-making preparation (15). A possible mediating influence of preparedness on the association between knowledge and conflict has not previously been evaluated. A final mediator is self-efficacy defined as the level of confidence in one's ability to understand the procedure and outcomes. DAs have been shown to increase self-efficacy (16). However, whether self-efficacy is a mechanism for the effects of improved knowledge on reduced decisional conflict has not been studied.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Proposed model of associations between knowledge, attitudes, and decisional conflict.

In the following analysis, we employed structural equation modeling to examine a mediational model of associations among knowledge, attitudes, and decisional conflict using baseline and follow-up data collected from a randomized trial of a CD-ROM intervention designed to facilitate informed consent for MSI testing (5,14).

Methods

Overview of the randomized study

Details of the methods are reported previously (14). Briefly, participants were 239 individuals with CRC meeting the revised Bethesda criteria (1) who were offered MSI testing. Participants were excluded if they met more stringent “Amsterdam criteria” (17). Informed consent was signed and the participant completed the baseline survey. Participants were then assigned to either education (E) only or E + CD-ROM. For E participants, the health educator provided a brief, standardized description of the MSI and IHC tests. For E + CD-ROM participants, education was followed by viewing the CD-ROM. Participants were permitted to review the CD-ROM at their own pace. Median usage time was 24 minutes (range 10–106 minutes). Two weeks later, the follow-up assessment was completed. Of the 319 patients approached, 239 consented, completed the baseline survey (75%) and 208 (75%) completed the follow-up survey. Approximately 90% of participants were white, 44% were college educated, and 69% were married.

Measures of MSI knowledge (17-item face valid true-false measure) and IHC knowledge (8-item face valid true-false measure) were developed by the investigative team. A 14-item Benefits of MSI testing measure and a 10-item Cons of MSI testing measure were adapted from a BRCA1/2 measure (18). A 4-item Self-Efficacy scale was modeled after the work of Bunn and O'Connor (19). Satisfaction with Preparation was measured with the 9-item Satisfaction with the Decision-making Process Questionnaire (20). A 10-item Completeness of Preparation scale was developed to examine how prepared participants felt to make the decision whether to have the MSI test. Decisional Conflict was assessed using the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (21).

Overview of the analytic strategy

Initially, all variables were assessed for normality. All were normally distributed with no outliers. A latent variable structural equation model (SEM) was used to test the theoretical framework (Fig. 1). Before conducting the SEM, individual items representing each latent construct were randomly combined into item parcels reflecting that particular construct. Two item parcels for each construct were developed. The 5 theoretically relevant subscales for decisional conflict were used as its manifest indicators.

The analyses employed LISREL v.8.8. Because of the small amount of missing data (8.85%), full information maximum likelihood (FIML) parameter estimation was used. In the missing data case, goodness of fit indicators (GFI) include χ2 and the point estimate of the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). RMSEA is used in a GFI significance test. Good fit is indicated by a nonsignificant χ2 and a nonsignificant RMSEA which should be less than 0.08 (22).

Results

Table 1 contains descriptive statistics and alphas for model variables.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and factor loadings for variables used in structural equation analysis

Given the centrality of postintervention knowledge in the theoretical framework (Fig. 1), we examined knowledge variables predicted by treatment arm and baseline MSI and IHC knowledge. The GFIs indicated a good fit to the data [χ2 (df = 20) = 28.20; P = 0.10; RMSEA = 0.041 (90% CI: 0.0–0.074); P = 0.63)]. As reported previously (14), treatment arm was a significant predictor of postintervention MSI and IHC knowledge (t = 2.29; P < 0.05; t = 3.03; P < 0.05, respectively). However, contrary to expectations, post-IHC knowledge was not predicted by its baseline counterpart. Removal of this path continued to yield a good fit (baseline IHC was deleted from subsequent model assessments).

Because the GFIs indicated a reasonably good fit to the data, modification indices (MI) were examined to determine if conceptually supported model changes could be identified. The MIs suggested that preintervention MSI knowledge should predict postintervention IHC knowledge. Freeing this path continued to yield a good fit [χ2 (df = 9) = 10.92; P = 0.28; RMSEA = 0.030 (90% CI: 0.0–0.082); P = 0.68]. The path was positive and significant (t = 3.06; P < 0.05).

Next, we examined intervening variables hypothesized to be predictors of decisional conflict. The introduction of pre- and postintervention MSI pros yielded a well-fitting model [χ2 (df = 37) = 33.26; P = 0.64; RMSEA = 0.00 (90% CI: 0.0–0.039); P = 0.99]. However, postintervention IHC knowledge did not predict postintervention MSI pros. Constraining this path to zero continued to yield a good model. The path from postintervention MSI knowledge was positive and significant (t = 2.43; P < 0.05).

MSI cons were examined next. The model continued to fit well [χ2 (df = 77) = 86.23; P = 0.22; RMSEA = 0.02 (90% CI: 0.0–0.044); P = 0.99]. However, neither postintervention MSI nor postintervention IHC knowledge predicted postintervention MSI cons. Nonetheless, the model GFIs remained acceptable.

The addition of pre- and postdecisional self-efficacy demonstrated that postintervention MSI knowledge did not predict postintervention decisional self-efficacy. However, model fit was still quite acceptable [χ2 (df = 139) = 157.00; P = 0.14; RMSEA = 0.023 (90% CI: 0.0–0.040); P = 1.00]. Constraining this path to zero still yielded an acceptable fit. The relationship between post-IHC knowledge and postintervention self-efficacy was positive (t = 5.84; P < 0.01).

The introduction of preparedness into the model indicated that the path linking postintervention IHC knowledge to preparedness was nonsignificant. Its removal led to an acceptable [χ2 (df = 174) = 219.21; P = 0.011; RMSEA = 0.033 (90% CI: 0.017–0.046; P = 0.99] fit.

Although the model in Figure 1 represents the hypothesis that the path from treatment arm to preparedness is only indirect (i.e., working through the knowledge constructs), the MIs suggested a direct path as well. freeing the direct path demonstrated that it was significant (t = 2.74; P < 0.05). Greater preparedness was reported by those in the E + CD condition compared with those in the E condition. Model fit was still acceptable [χ2 (df = 173) = 212.24; P = 0.023; RMSEA = 0.031 (90% CI: 0.012–0.044); P = 0.99].

A test of the full model depicted in Figure 2 showed that model GFI was quite acceptable [χ2 (df = 280) = 392.24; P = 0.00; RMSEA = 0.041 (90% CI: 0.031–0.050); P = 0.99]. As expected, the paths to decisional conflict were significant for postintervention MSI pros (t = −2.43; P < 0.05), MSI cons (t = 2.78; P < 0.05), and preparedness (t = −7.27; P < 0.01). Less decisional conflict was reported by those reporting more MSI pros, better preparedness, and fewer MSI cons. However, although postintervention IHC knowledge predicted greater decisional self-efficacy, the latter did not predict decisional conflict. Our model had a lower (i.e., a better fit) AIC (23) than an alternate model in which decisional conflict predicted MSI pros, MSI cons, and preparedness.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Results of SEM of associations between knowledge, attitudes, and decisional conflict.

Discussion

The SEM explained 47% of the variance in decisional conflict suggesting that the intervention along with knowledge and decisional processes played a strong role in predicting conflict. The intervention increased MSI knowledge which, in turn, influenced preparedness and pros, and both knowledge- and preparedness-mediated associations with decisional conflict. In this context, obtaining knowledge helped patients feel more prepared to make the decision and to appreciate the possible benefits of the MSI test.

However, our hypothetical model was not completely supported by the data. First, although MSI cons contributed to decisional conflict, neither the intervention nor MSI and/or IHC knowledge reduced perceived cons. One possible explanation is that the content of the CD-ROM did not address some testing barriers such as the lack of desire to learn about familial risk and concerns about insurance discrimination. A second way the model was not supported was due to the associations among the intervention, IHC knowledge, and self-efficacy. The intervention increased IHC knowledge which then increased self-efficacy. However, neither IHC knowledge nor self-efficacy was associated with other decisional processes or decisional conflict. Two contributing factors may include that there was less informational content about IHC in the CD-ROM, and that the pros, cons, and preparedness items asked about MSI testing, making IHC knowledge a less critical component of the decision-making process evaluated here.

In terms of limitations, although our approach was strengthened by the incorporation of longitudinal data, any approach that searches for a best fitting model by using MIs, such as SEM, is susceptible to capitalization on chance (24). Replication with another sample would be necessary. Also, because decisional conflict and follow-up mediator variables were measured at the same time point, causality cannot be proven but only inferred by the superior AIC of the final model. Although we tested an alternative model which did not fit as well as the proposed model, it is still possible that reduced decisional conflict leads to increased perceptions of preparedness and greater pros. Important limitations to the study's sample also exist as it is not representative of the U.S. cancer population by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic level, and treatment at an academic medical center.

Our results suggest that DAs affect decisional conflict through multiple pathways including knowledge-dependent and knowledge-independent paths, attitude changes, and improved feelings of preparation. Further research to understand the importance of different pathways while varying decisional context (difficult vs. easy) and the decision maker (educated vs. uneducated) may better elucidate the decision process. Future DAs may also have a greater impact if content addressed more barriers. As noted by Farrell and colleagues (25), attitudes about testing should be taken into account when counseling patients about test benefits and risks. From a clinical perspective, these findings illuminate the important role of knowledge, preparedness, and perceived benefits of testing in reducing uncertainty in the decision making context.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Grant Support

Funded by grant CA109332 from the National Cancer Institute and P30 CA006927 to Fox Chase Cancer Center, and by an Established Investigator in Cancer Prevention and Control Award to S.L. Manne by the National Cancer Institute (K05 CA109008).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Acknowledgments

We thank Mary Daly, Jason Driesbaugh, Zhora Catts, Maryann Krayger, Deborah Lee, Cheri Manning, Kristen Shannon, Hetal Vig, Marianna Silverman, Stacy McConnell, and Sara Worhach. We also thank the physicians at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Christiana Care Health System for referring patients to this study.

  • Received June 28, 2010.
  • Revision received December 13, 2010.
  • Accepted December 15, 2010.
  • ©2011 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Umar A,
    2. Boland CR,
    3. Terdiman JP,
    4. Syngal S,
    5. de la Chapelle A,
    6. Ruschoff J,
    7. et al.
    Revised Bethesda Guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:261–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. American Society of Clinical Oncology
    . American Society of Clinical Oncology Policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2397–406.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Beauchamp T,
    2. Childress J
    . Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2001.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Annas GJ
    . The Rights of Patients. 3rd ed. New York: NYU Press; 2004.
  5. 5.↵
    1. Manne SL,
    2. Chung DC,
    3. Weinberg DS,
    4. Vig HS,
    5. Catts Z,
    6. Cabral MK,
    7. et al.
    Knowledge and attitudes about microsatellite instability testing among high-risk individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16:2110–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. O'Connor AM,
    2. Stacey D,
    3. Entwhistle W,
    4. Llewellyn-Thomas H,
    5. Rovner D,
    6. Holmes-Rovner M
    . Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decision. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;CD001431.
  7. 7.↵
    1. Green MJ,
    2. Peterson SK,
    3. Baker MW,
    4. Harper GR,
    5. Friedman LC,
    6. Rubinstein WS,
    7. et al.
    Effect of a computer-based decision aid on knowledge, perceptions, and intentions about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;292:442–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Mancini J,
    2. Nogues C,
    3. Adenis C,
    4. Berthet P,
    5. Bonadona V,
    6. Chompret A,
    7. et al.
    Impact of an information booklet on satisfaction and decision-making about BRCA genetic testing. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:871–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. O'Connor A,
    2. Drake E,
    3. Fiset V,
    4. Graham I,
    5. Laupacis A,
    6. Tugwell P
    . The Ottawa patient decision aids. Effective Clin Pract 1999;2:163–70.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. O'Connor AM
    . Decisional Conflict. 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO: C.V. Mosby; 1993.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Dolan J,
    2. Frisina S
    . Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Making 2002;22:125–39.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Whelan T,
    2. Levine M,
    3. Willan A,
    4. Gafni A,
    5. Sanders K,
    6. Mirsky D,
    7. et al.
    Effect of a decision aid on knowledge and treatment decision making for breast cancer. JAMA 2004;292:435–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Stephens RL,
    2. Xu Y,
    3. Volk RJ,
    4. Scholl LE,
    5. Kamin SL,
    6. Holden EW,
    7. et al.
    Influence of a patient decision aid on decisional conflict related to PSA testing: a structural equation model. Health Psych 2008;27:711–21.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Manne SL,
    2. Meropol NJ,
    3. Weinberg DS,
    4. Vig H,
    5. Ali-Khan Catts Z,
    6. Manning C,
    7. et al.
    Facilitating informed decisions regarding microsatellite instability testing among high-risk individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1366–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Laupacis A,
    2. O'Connor A,
    3. Drake E,
    4. Rubens FD,
    5. Rubblee JA,
    6. Grant FC,
    7. et al.
    A decision aid for autologous pre-donation in cardiac surgery- A randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns 2006;61:458–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. McBride C,
    2. Bastian L,
    3. Halabi S,
    4. Fish L,
    5. Lipkus IM,
    6. Bosworth HB,
    7. et al.
    A tailored intervention to aid decision making about hormone replacement therapy. Am J Pub Health 2002;92:1112–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Vasen HF,
    2. Mecklin JP,
    3. Khan PM,
    4. Lynch HT
    . The International Collaborative Group on hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rect 1991;34:424–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Lerman C,
    2. Biesecker B,
    3. Benkendorf JL,
    4. Kerner J,
    5. Gomez-Caminero A,
    6. Hughes C,
    7. et al.
    Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCA1 gene testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:148–57.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Bunn H,
    2. O'Connor A
    . Validation of client decision-making instruments in the context of psychiatry. Can J Nursing Res 1996;28:13–27.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Barry M,
    2. Cherkin D,
    3. Chang Y,
    4. Fowler F,
    5. Skates S
    . A randomized trial of a multimedia shared decision-making program for men facing a treatment decision for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Dis Management Clin Outcomes 1997;1:5–14.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. O'Connor AM
    . Decisional Conflict Scale. 4th ed. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Loeb Health Research Institute; 1999.
  22. 22.↵
    1. Bollen KA,
    2. Long JS
    1. Browne MW,
    2. Cudeck R
    . Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1993. p. 136–62.
  23. 23.↵
    1. Petrov BN,
    2. Csaki F
    1. Akaike H
    . Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov BN, Csaki F, editors. Second International Symposium on Information Theory. Budapest, Hungary: Akademiai Kiado; 1973. p. 267—81.
  24. 24.↵
    1. MacCallum R,
    2. Roznowski M,
    3. Necowitz L
    . Model specifications in covariance structure analysis: the problem of capitalization on chance. Psychol Bull 1992;111:490–504.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Farrell M,
    2. Murphy M,
    3. Schneider C
    . How underlying patient beliefs can affect physician patient communication about prostate specific antigen testing. Effect Clin Pract 2002;5:120–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 20 (2)
February 2011
Volume 20, Issue 2
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effects of a Decision Support Intervention on Decisional Conflict Associated with Microsatellite Instability Testing
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Effects of a Decision Support Intervention on Decisional Conflict Associated with Microsatellite Instability Testing
Michael J. Hall, Sharon L. Manne, Gary Winkel, Daniel S. Chung, David S. Weinberg and Neal J. Meropol
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev February 1 2011 (20) (2) 249-254; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0685

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Effects of a Decision Support Intervention on Decisional Conflict Associated with Microsatellite Instability Testing
Michael J. Hall, Sharon L. Manne, Gary Winkel, Daniel S. Chung, David S. Weinberg and Neal J. Meropol
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev February 1 2011 (20) (2) 249-254; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0685
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Grant Support
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Urinary Melatonin in Relation to Breast Cancer Risk
  • Endometrial Cancer and Ovarian Cancer Cross-Cancer GWAS
  • Risk Factors of Subsequent CNS Tumor after Pediatric Cancer
Show more Research Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement