We used a norm-based cut-off, as we believe that sufficient knowledge of an individual should not be based on the relative knowledge

of other subjects, but on a minimum of desired knowledge. Since the introduction of the definition of informed decision as defined by Marteau et al, several studies have evaluated the level of informed decision making in cancer screening [38] and [34]. Compared to previous studies, we found a relatively high number of screenees and non-screenees with adequate knowledge, while the percentage of screenees with a positive attitude in our study was only slightly lower. The first study on informed decision making in screening was performed within a RCT of CT screening for lung cancer in high-risk individuals [37]. That study was most comparable to our selleckchem study, as the authors also defined adequate knowledge and

positive attitude as scores above the midpoint of the complete scales. Overall, 73% of screenees and 54% of non-screenees were found to have adequate knowledge, while 99% of screenees and 64% of non-screenees had a positive attitude toward screening. Another study [34] was conducted in a population-based cervical cancer screening program Akt signaling pathway using a Pap smear. Invitees received a questionnaire, together with their invitation and standard information leaflet. Sixty-four percent of responding screenees had sufficient knowledge and 99% was found to have a positive attitude toward screening. That study was less comparable to our study, as at least 6 out of 7 knowledge items had to be answered correctly. As far as we know, no other studies have been published on informed decision-making in colorectal cancer screening using colonoscopy or CT colonography. Compared to these previous studies, a relative high number of screenees made an informed decision in our program. This may be explained by variability Carnitine dehydrogenase in methods, such as differences in the type or amount of information given in the information leaflet and in defining adequate knowledge, or by the fact that all screenees

in this trial had a prior consultation before they underwent the examination. A second explanation for the different results could be the variety in diseases under evaluation, including the subsequent possibility of differences in prior knowledge among invitees. Both in colonoscopy and CT colonography, some knowledge statements were more often answered incorrectly by non-screenees than by screenees, such as ‘If an invitee feels healthy, it is not useful to participate’. These results indicate that screenees are more often aware than non-screenees that someone can have cancer without being symptomatic. This contrast is consistent with findings of a previous study [39]. Our results also show that invitees were not always familiar with the difference between colonoscopy and CT colonography, as 49% of CT colonography non-screenees thought that the large bowel was visualized with an endoscope during CT colonography.