Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding in Health Care Guidelines: The RIGHT-COI&F Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest (COIs) of contributors to a guideline project and the funding of that project can influence the development of the guideline. Comprehensive reporting of information on COIs and funding is essential for the transparency and credibility of guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for the reporting of COIs and funding in policy documents of guideline organizations and in guidelines: the RIGHT-COI&F checklist. DESIGN: The recommendations of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network were followed. The process consisted of registration of the project and setting up working groups, generation of the initial list of items, achieving consensus on the items, and formulating and testing the final checklist. SETTING: International collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: 44 experts. MEASUREMENTS: Consensus on checklist items. RESULTS: The checklist contains 27 items: 18 about the COIs of contributors and 9 about the funding of the guideline project. Of the 27 items, 16 are labeled as policy related because they address the reporting of COI and funding policies that apply across an organization's guideline projects. These items should be described ideally in the organization's policy documents, otherwise in the specific guideline. The remaining 11 items are labeled as implementation related and they address the reporting of COIs and funding of the specific guideline. LIMITATION: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist requires testing in real-life use. CONCLUSION: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist can be used to guide the reporting of COIs and funding in guideline development and to assess the completeness of reporting in published guidelines and policy documents. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

Assessment of confidence in medical writing: Development and validation of the first trustworthy measurement tool.

BACKGROUND: The popularity of medical writing workshops highlights the need for a standard measurement tool to assess the impact of such workshops on participants' confidence in: 1- writing a standard article and 2- using optimal English language. Because such an instrument is not yet available, we undertook this study to devise and evaluate the first measurement tool to assess such confidence. METHOD: We created an item pool of 50 items by searching Medline, Embase, and Clarivate Analytics to find related articles, using our prior experience, and approaching the key informants. We revised and edited the item pool, and redundant ones were excluded. Finally, the 36-item tool comprised two domains. We tested it in a group of workshop applicants for internal consistency and temporal reliability using Cronbach's α and Pearson correlations and for content and convergent validity using the content validity index and Pearson correlations. RESULTS: The participants had a mean age of 40.3 years, a female predominance (74.3%), and a majority of faculty members (51.4%). The internal consistency showed high reliability (> 0.95). Test-retest reliability showed very high correlations (r = 0.93). The CVI for domain 1 was 0.78, for domain 2 was 0.73, and for the entire instrument was 0.75. CONCLUSION: This unique, reliable, and valid measurement tool could accurately measure the level of confidence in writing a standard medical article and in using the appropriate English language for this purpose.

Improving methods of clinical practice guidelines: From guidelines to pathways to fast-and-frugal trees and decision analysis to develop individualised patient care.

BACKGROUND: Current methods for developing clinical practice guidelines have several limitations: they are characterised by the "black box" operation-a process with defined inputs and outputs but an incomplete understanding of its internal workings; they have "the integration problem"-a lack of framework for explicitly integrating factors such as patient preferences and trade-offs between benefits and harms; they generate one recommendation at a time that typically are not connected in a coherent analytical framework; and they apply to "average" patients, while clinicians and their patients seek advice tailored to individual circumstances. METHODS: We propose augmenting the current guideline development method by converting evidence-based pathways into fast-and-frugal decision trees (FFTs) and integrating them with generalised decision curve analysis to formulate clear, individualised management recommendations. RESULTS: We illustrate the process by developing recommendations for the management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). We converted evidence-based pathways for HIT, developed by the American Society of Hematology, into an FFT. Here, we consider only thrombotic complications and major bleeding. We leveraged the predictive potential of FFTs to compare the effects of argatroban, bivalirudin, fondaparinux, and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) using generalised decision curve analysis. We found that DOACs were superior to other treatments if the FFT-predicted probability of HIT exceeded 3%. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed analytical framework connects guidelines, pathways, FFTs, and decision analysis, offering risk-tailored personalised recommendations and addressing current guideline development critiques.

Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation concept article 5: addressing intransitivity in a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This article describes considerations for addressing intransitivity when assessing the certainty of the evidence from network meta-analysis (NMA) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Intransitivity is induced by effect modification, that is, when the magnitude of the effect between an intervention and outcome differs depending on the level of another factor. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: To develop this GRADE concept paper, the lead authors conducted iterative discussions, computer simulations, and presentations to the GRADE project group and at GRADE working group meetings. The GRADE Working Group formally approved the article in July 2022. RESULTS: NMA authors can have a higher or a lower threshold to rate down the certainty of the evidence due to intransitivity, which depends on the extent of their concerns regarding the trustworthiness of indirect comparisons, and their view of the relative problems with rating down excessively or insufficiently. NMA authors should consider three main factors when addressing intransitivity: the credibility of effect modification, the strength of the effect modification, and the distribution of effect modifiers across the direct comparisons. To avoid double counting limitations of the evidence, authors should consider the relationship between intransitivity and other GRADE domains. CONCLUSION: NMA authors face theoretic and pragmatic challenges and in most situations need to assess intransitivity without the availability of empirical data. Thus, explicitness regarding perspective is crucial.

Decision Analysis in SHared decision making for Thromboprophylaxis during Pregnancy (DASH-TOP): a sequential explanatory mixed-methods pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into formal methods of integrating patient preferences and clinical evidence to inform treatment decisions, we explored patients' experience with a personalised decision analysis intervention, for prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in the antenatal period. DESIGN: Mixed-methods explanatory sequential pilot study. SETTING: Hospitals in Canada (n=1) and Spain (n=4 sites). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted part of the study virtually. PARTICIPANTS: 15 individuals with a prior venous thromboembolism who were pregnant or planning pregnancy and had been referred for counselling regarding LMWH. INTERVENTION: A shared decision-making intervention that included three components: (1) direct choice exercise; (2) preference elicitation exercises and (3) personalised decision analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire to evaluate decision quality (decisional conflict, self-efficacy and satisfaction). Semistructured interviews were then conducted to explore their experience and perceptions of the decision-making process. RESULTS: Participants in the study appreciated the opportunity to use an evidence-based decision support tool that considered their personal values and preferences and reported feeling more prepared for their consultation. However, there were mixed reactions to the standard gamble and personalised treatment recommendation. Some participants could not understand how to complete the standard gamble exercises, and others highlighted the need for more informative ways of presenting results of the decision analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the challenges and opportunities for those who wish to incorporate decision analysis to support shared decision-making for clinical decisions.

Initial Assessment and Monitoring of Patients with Chronic Hypoparathyroidism: A Systematic Current Practice Survey.

Chronic hypoparathyroidism (HypoPT) is associated with significant morbidity and impaired quality of life (QoL). The goals of management for chronic HypoPT include improvement in QoL and the prevention of both hypo- and hypercalcemia symptoms and long-term complications. Several groups have provided consensus statements and guidelines on the management of HypoPT; however, due to limited evidence, these recommendations have largely been based on literature reviews, expert opinion, and consensus statements. The objective of this study was to use a systematic approach to describe current practice for the initial assessment and follow-up of patients with chronic HypoPT. We developed a survey asking experts in the field to select the responses that best reflect their current practice. The survey found no differences in responses between nonsurgical and postsurgical patient assessment. For new patients, respondents usually performed an assessment of serum lab profile (calcium [either albumin-adjusted or ionized], magnesium, creatinine, phosphate, 25-hydroxyvitamin D), 24-hour urine (creatinine, calcium), and a renal ultrasound to evaluate for the presence of nephrocalcinosis or nephrolithiasis. For follow-up patients, most respondents perform blood tests and urine tests every 6 months or less frequently. The reported clinical practice patterns for monitoring for complications of chronic HypoPT vary considerably among respondents. Based on the responses in this systematic expert practice survey, we provide practice suggestions for initial assessment and follow-up of patients with chronic HypoPT. In addition, we highlight areas with significant variation in practice and identify important areas for future research. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

GRADE guidance 35: update on rating imprecision for assessing contextualized certainty of evidence and making decisions.

OBJECTIVES: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance to rate the certainty domain of imprecision is presently not fully operationalized for rating down by two levels and when different baseline risk or uncertainty in these risks are considered. In addition, there are scenarios in which lowering the certainty of evidence by three levels for imprecision is more appropriate than lowering it by two levels. In this article, we conceptualize and operationalize rating down for imprecision by one, two and three levels for imprecision using the contextualized GRADE approaches and making decisions. METHODS: Through iterative discussions and refinement in online meetings and through email communication, we developed draft guidance to rating the certainty of evidence down by up to three levels based on examples. The lead authors revised the approach according to the feedback and the comments received during these meetings and developed GRADE guidance for how to apply it. We presented a summary of the results to all attendees of the GRADE Working Group meeting for feedback in October 2021 (approximately 80 people) where the approach was formally approved. RESULTS: This guidance provides GRADE's novel approach for the considerations about rating down for imprecision by one, two and three levels based on serious, very serious and extremely serious concerns. The approach includes identifying or defining thresholds for health outcomes that correspond to trivial or none, small, moderate or large effects and using them to rate imprecision. It facilitates the use of evidence to decision frameworks and also provides guidance for how to address imprecision about implausible large effects and trivial or no effects using the concept of the 'review information size' and for varying baseline risks. The approach is illustrated using practical examples, an online calculator and graphical displays and can be applied to dichotomous and continuous outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this GRADE guidance article, we provide updated guidance for how to rate imprecision using the partially and fully contextualized GRADE approaches for making recommendations or decisions, considering alternate baseline risks and for both dichotomous and continuous outcomes.

GRADE guidance 24 optimizing the integration of randomized and non-randomized studies of interventions in evidence syntheses and health guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This is the 24th in the ongoing series of articles describing the GRADE approach for assessing the certainty of a body of evidence in systematic reviews and health technology assessments and how to move from evidence to recommendations in guidelines. METHODS: Guideline developers and authors of systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses use randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) as sources of evidence for questions about health interventions. RCTs with low risk of bias are the most trustworthy source of evidence for estimating relative effects of interventions because of protection against confounding and other biases. However, in several instances, NRSI can still provide valuable information as complementary, sequential, or replacement evidence for RCTs. RESULTS: In this article we offer guidance on the decision regarding when to search for and include either or both types of studies in systematic reviews to inform health recommendations. CONCLUSION: This work aims to help methodologists in review teams, technology assessors, guideline panelists, and anyone conducting evidence syntheses using GRADE.

More work needed on decision analysis for shared decision-making: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To explore and characterize published evidence on the ways decision analysis has been used to inform shared decision-making. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: For this scoping review, we searched five bibliographic databases (from inception until February 2021), reference lists of included studies, trial registries, a thesis database and websites of relevant interest groups. Studies were eligible if they evaluated the application of decision analysis in a shared decision-making encounter. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and selected studies for inclusion, extracted study information using a data extraction form developed by the research team and assessed risk of bias for all studies with an experimental or quasi-experimental design. Data were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: We identified 27 studies that varied greatly with regard to their patient population, design, content and delivery. A range of outcomes were evaluated to explore the effectiveness and acceptability of decision analytic interventions, with little information about the implementation process. Most studies found that decision analysis was broadly beneficial. CONCLUSION: Despite the compelling rationale on the potential for decision analysis to support shared decision-making, rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these interventions' effectiveness, while qualitative studies should seek to understand their potential implementation.

Users' Guide to Medical Decision Analysis.

Clinicians regularly have to trade benefits and harms to choose between testing and treatment strategies. This process is often done by making global and implicit judgments. A decision analysis is an analytic method that makes this process more explicit, reproducible, and evidence-based. While clinicians are unlikely to conduct their own decision analysis, they will read publications of such analyses or use guidelines based on them. This review outlines the anatomy of a decision tree and provides clinicians with the tools to critically appraise a decision analysis and apply its results to medical decision making. Clinicians reading about a decision analysis can make two judgments. The first judgment is about the credibility of the methods, such as whether the decision analysis addressed a relevant clinical question, included all important outcomes, used the current best evidence to derive variables in the model, and adopted the appropriate time horizon. The second judgment is about rating confidence in the preferred course of action by determining the certainty in the model variables, whether the results are robust in sensitivity analyses and if the results are applicable to a specific patient. Results from a valid and robust decision analysis can inform both guideline panels and the patient-clinician dyad engaged in shared decision-making.

Three week compared to seven week run-in period length and the assessment of pre-randomization adherence: A study within a trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To examine how measuring adherence at 3 weeks by self-report and pill counts compares to measurements at 7 weeks in a pre-randomization run-in period. METHODS: Study within a trial of an international parallel group randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compares spironolactone to placebo. Adults receiving dialysis enter an 8-week active run-in period with spironolactone. Adherence was assessed by both self-report and pill counts in a subgroup of participants at both 3 weeks and 7 weeks. RESULTS: 332 participants entered the run-in period of which 166 had complete data. By self-report, 146/166 (94.0%) and 153/166 (92.2%) had at least 80% adherence at 3 and 7 weeks respectively (kappa = 0.27 (95% C.I. 0.16 to 0.38). By pill counts, the mean (SD) adherence was 96.5% (16.1%) and 92.4% (18.2%) at 3 and 7 weeks respectively (r = 0.32) with a mean (SD) difference of 3.1% (17.8%) and a 95% limit of agreement from -31.7% to +37.9%. The proportion of adherent participants by self-report and pill counts at 3 weeks agreed in 87.4% of participants (McNemar's p-value 0.58, kappa 0.11, p = 0.02) and at 7 weeks agreed in 92.2% (McNemar's p-value 0.82, kappa 0.47, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Three and seven-week run-in periods and both self-reported and pill count assessments performed similarly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03020303.

When applying GRADE, how do we decide the target of certainty of evidence rating?

The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) offers a widely adopted, transparent and structured process for developing and presenting summaries of evidence, including the certainty of evidence, for systematic reviews and recommendations in healthcare. GRADE defined certainty of evidence as 'the extent of our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct (in the context of systematic review), or are adequate to support a particular decision or recommendation (in the context of guideline)'. Realising the incoherence in the conceptualisation, the GRADE working group re-clarified the certainty of evidence as 'the certainty that a true effect lies on one side of a specified threshold, or within a chosen range'. Following the new concept, in the context of both systematic reviews and health technology assessments, it is desirable for GRADE users to specify the thresholds and clarify of which effect they are certain. To help GRADE users apply GRADE in accordance with the new conceptualisation, GRADE defines three levels of contextualisation: minimally, partially and fully contextualised approaches, and provides possible thresholds for each level of contextualisation. In this article, we will use a hypothetic systematic review to illustrate the application of the minimally and partially contextualised approaches, and discuss the application of a fully contextualised approach in deciding how we are rating our certainty (i.e.target of the rating of certainty of evidence).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening in a low incidence country: The case of Saudi Arabia.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective in many Western countries, and many have successfully implemented CRC screening programs. For countries with a lower CRC incidence, like Saudi Arabia, the value of CRC screening is less evident and requires careful weighing of harms, benefits, and costs. Methods: We used the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to simulate a male and female cohort with life expectancy and CRC risk as observed in Saudi Arabia. For both cohorts, we evaluated strategies without screening, with annual or biennial faecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and with 10-yearly or once-only colonoscopy. We also considered different start and end ages of screening. For both cohorts, we estimated lifetime costs and effects of each strategy. We then identified a set of potentially cost-effective strategies using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) defined as the additional cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Results: Without CRC screening, an estimated 14 per 1,000 males would develop CRC during their lifetime and 9 would die from CRC. Several strategies proved potentially cost-effective including biennial FIT at ages 55-65 (ICER of $7,400), once-only colonoscopy at age 55 (ICER of $7,700), and 10-yearly colonoscopy at ages 50-65, 45-65, and 45-75 (ICERs of $34,000, 71,000, and 375,000, respectively). For females, risk of CRC was lower and CRC screening was therefore less cost-effective, but efficient strategies were largely similar. Conclusions: Despite low CRC incidence in Saudi Arabia, some FIT or colonoscopy screening strategies may meet reasonable thresholds of cost-effectiveness. The optimal strategy will depend on multiple factors including the willingness to pay per QALY, the colonoscopy capacity, and the accepted budget impact.

GRADE guidelines 32: GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings.

OBJECTIVE: To provide practical principles and examples to help GRADE users make optimal choices regarding their ratings of certainty of evidence using a minimally or partially contextualized approach. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on the GRADE clarification of certainty of evidence in 2017, a project group within the GRADE Working Group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE Working Group meetings to refine this construct and produce practical guidance. RESULTS: Systematic review and health technology assessment authors need to clarify what it is in which they are rating their certainty of evidence (i.e., the target of their certainty rating). The decision depends on the degree of contextualization (partially or minimally contextualized), thresholds (null, small, moderate or large effect threshold), and where the point estimate lies in relation to the chosen threshold(s). When the 95% confidence interval crosses multiple possible thresholds (i.e., including both large benefit and large harm), it is not worthwhile for authors to determine the target of certainty rating. CONCLUSION: GRADE provides practical principles to help systematic review and health technology assessment authors specify the target of their certainty of evidence rating.

Decision Analysis in SHared decision making for Thromboprophylaxis during Pregnancy (DASH-TOP): a sequential explanatory mixed methods pilot study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Decision analysis is a quantitative approach to decision making that could bridge the gap between decisions based solely on evidence and the unique values and preferences of individual patients, a feature especially important when existing evidence cannot support clear recommendations and there is a close balance between harms and benefits for the treatments options under consideration. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during pregnancy represents one such situation. The objective of this paper is to describe the rationale and methodology of a pilot study that will explore the application of decision analysis to a shared decision-making process involving prophylactic LMWH for pregnant women or those considering pregnancy who have experienced a VTE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct an international, mixed methods, explanatory, sequential study, including quantitative data collection and analysis followed by qualitative data collection and analysis. In step I, we will ask women who are pregnant or considering pregnancy and have experienced VTE to participate in a shared decision-making intervention for prophylactic LMWH. The intervention consists of three components: a direct choice exercise, a values elicitation exercise and a personalised decision analysis. After administration of the intervention, we will ask women to make a treatment decision and measure decisional conflict, self-efficacy and satisfaction. In step II, which follows the analysis of quantitative data, we will use the results to inform the qualitative interview. Step III will be a qualitative descriptive study that explores participants' experiences and perceptions of the intervention. In step IV, we will integrate findings from the qualitative and quantitative analyses to obtain meta-inferences. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Site-specific ethics boards have approved the study. All participants will provide informed consent. The research team will take an integrated approach to knowledge translation.

Influence of electronic triage decision-support on hospital admission, left without being seen and time to physician initial assessment in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of the implementation of eCTAS, a real-time electronic decision-support tool, on hospital admission, rate of left without being seen, and time from triage to physician initial assessment. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using population-based administrative data from all Ontario emergency departments (EDs) that had implemented eCTAS for 9 months. We compared 6 months post-eCTAS data to the same 6 months the previous year (pre-eCTAS). We included triage encounters of adult (≥ 18 years) patients if they had one of 16 pre-specified, high-volume presenting complaints. Multivariable logistic regression and quantile regression models informed the effect of eCTAS on outcomes. RESULTS: We included data from 354,176 triage encounters from 31 EDs. There was a change in the distribution of triage scores post-eCTAS, with fewer patients classified as CTAS 2 and CTAS 3, and more patients classified as CTAS 1 and CTAS 4. Overall, hospital admission decreased post-eCTAS (adjusted OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.00), with fewer CTAS 2 and more CTAS 3 and CTAS 4 patients admitted post-eCTAS. The rate of left without being seen increased (2.8% vs. 3.0%; adjusted OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.11) post-eCTAS, while time to physician initial assessment proved similar pre and post-eCTAS. CONCLUSIONS: eCTAS implementation had little impact on admission, rate of left without being seen and time to physician initial assessment. eCTAS appears to reclassify patients from higher to lower acuity scores, resulting in higher admission rates for CTAS 3 and CTAS 4 patients. It remains unknown if this reclassification is appropriate.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Étudier l'impact de la mise en œuvre de l'eCTAS, un outil électronique d'aide à la décision en temps réel, sur l'admission à l'hôpital, le taux de personnes qui ne sont pas vues et le délai entre le triage et l'évaluation initiale du médecin. LES MéTHODES: Nous avons mené une étude de cohorte en utilisant les données administratives basées sur la population de tous les services d'urgence (SU) de l'Ontario qui avaient mis en place l'eCTAS depuis 9 mois. Nous avons comparé les données de six mois après l'eCTAS aux mêmes données de six mois de l'année précédente (avant l'eCTAS). Nous avons inclus les rencontres de triage des patients adultes (≥ 18 ans) s'ils présentaient l'une des 16 plaintes pré-spécifiées à haut volume. Des modèles de régression logistique multivariable et de régression quantile ont permis d'évaluer l'effet de l'eCTAS sur les résultats. RéSULTATS: Nous avons inclus les données de 354 176 rencontres de triage provenant de 31 services d'urgence. Il y a eu un changement dans la distribution des scores de triage après l'eCTAS, avec moins de patients classés comme CTAS 2 et CTAS 3, et plus de patients classés comme CTAS 1 et CTAS 4. Dans l'ensemble, les admissions à l'hôpital ont diminué après l'eCTAS (RC ajusté: 0,98 ; 95 % IC 0,97 à 1,00), avec moins de patients CTAS 2 et plus de patients CTAS 3 et CTAS 4 admis après eCTAS. Le taux de personnes laissées sans surveillance a augmenté (2,8 % contre 3,0 % ; RC ajusté : 1,07 ; 95 % IC 1,03 à 1,11) après l'eCTAS, tandis que le délai avant l'évaluation initiale par le médecin s'est avéré similaire avant et après l'eCTAS. CONCLUSIONS: La mise en œuvre de l'eCTAS a eu peu d'impact sur l'admission, le taux de patients laissés sans consultation et le temps nécessaire à l'évaluation initiale par le médecin. L'eCTAS semble reclasser les patients des scores d'acuité supérieurs aux scores d'acuité inférieurs, ce qui entraîne des taux d'admission plus élevés pour les patients CTAS 3 et CTAS 4. On ignore encore si ce reclassement est approprié.

The impact of information about different absolute benefits and harms on intention to participate in colorectal cancer screening: A think-aloud study and online randomised experiment.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable heterogeneity in individuals' risk of disease and thus the absolute benefits and harms of population-wide screening programmes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as an exemplar, we explored how people make decisions about screening when presented with information about absolute benefits and harms, and how those preferences vary with baseline risk, between screening tests and between individuals. METHOD: We conducted two linked studies with members of the public: a think-aloud study exploring decision making in-depth and an online randomised experiment quantifying preferences. In both, participants completed a web-based survey including information about three screening tests (colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and faecal immunochemical testing) and then up to nine scenarios comparing screening to no screening for three levels of baseline risk (1%, 3% and 5% over 15 years) and the three screening tests. Participants reported, after each scenario, whether they would opt for screening (yes/no). RESULTS: Of the 20 participants in the think-aloud study 13 did not consider absolute benefits or harms when making decisions concerning CRC screening. In the online experiment (n = 978), 60% expressed intention to attend at 1% risk of CRC, 70% at 3% and 77% at 5%, with no differences between screening tests. At an individual level, 535 (54.7%) would attend at all three risk levels and 178 (18.2%) at none. The 27% whose intention varied by baseline risk were more likely to be younger, without a family history of CRC, and without a prior history of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Most people in our population were not influenced by the range of absolute benefits and harms associated with CRC screening presented. For an appreciable minority, however, magnitude of benefit was important.