MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413971209 · doi:10.1177/10732748251372677

Early Feedback for the Development of a Novel Brief Colon Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Adults ≥75 years at Risk for Limited Health Literacy: A Pilot Study

2025· article· en· W4413971209 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tamara Cadet, B. Dahlb ck, Mei Hu, Alziyaidi Hassan Mohammed Z, M Siska, Rebekah Halmo, Mara A. Schonberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Control · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicineHealth literacyColorectal cancer screeningLiteracyColorectal cancerCancer screeningFamily medicineMedical educationCancerHealth careInternal medicineColonoscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionAchieving health literacy is a primary goal of Healthy People 2030 due to the increasing recognition of its role to improve the health and well-being of all populations. Shared decision-making (SDM), a recognized process between patients and health care providers to discuss which health care decision is best for the patient considering the pros and cons, patient preferences, and circumstances, can improve health outcomes. Specifically, SDM can increase patient knowledge and the quality of decision-making, resulting in patients feeling more empowered, demonstrating less decisional regret, and more motivation. Yet, limited health literacy (LHL) can hinder a patient's ability to engage in the SDM process. Patients' ability to engage in SDM can be helped by improving health literacy levels, and by the suitability of the tools available to support them. Decision aids (DA) are educational tools that can help with SDM. SDM provides patients with the necessary skills, which, when paired with DAs designed with and for populations with LHL, can improve communication with health care providers.MethodsGuided by elements of the Ottawa Decision Framework and principles of human-centered design, in this retrospective study we aimed to develop a novel and current brief colon cancer screening DA, "Making a Decision: Should I Stop or Continue Colon Cancer Screening - Ages 75-85," based on feedback from adults ≥75 years at risk for LHL in two focus groups and a comprehensive health literacy demand assessment of the "Making a Decision About Colon Cancer Screening" using four tools to determine its readability, understandability, and actionability.ResultsFindings include a DA that was viewed favorably by older adult participants who were at risk for LHL.ConclusionsWith feedback from older adults at risk for LHL, we have developed a DA that can be tested in a larger randomized control trial.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ControlSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207