Warning: Undefined array key "mm" in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Gaining informed consent for screening. Is difficult--but many misconceptions need to be undone.

Literature DB >> 10487983

Gaining informed consent for screening. Is difficult--but many misconceptions need to be undone.

J Austoker.

Abstract

Keywords: Health Care and Public Health; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh：

Year: 1999 PMID： 10487983 PMCID： PMC1116583 DOI： 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.722

Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ ISSN： 0959-8138

× No keyword cloud information.

10 in total

Review 1. Bridging the knowledge gap and communicating uncertainties for informed consent in cervical cytology screening; we need unbiased information and a culture change.

Authors: C M Anderson; J Nottingham
Journal: Cytopathology Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 2.073

2. Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review.

Authors: H Bekker; J G Thornton; C M Airey; J B Connelly; J Hewison; M B Robinson; J Lilleyman; M MacIntosh; A J Maule; S Michie; A D Pearman
Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 1999 Impact factor: 4.014

3. Evidence based patient information. is important, so there needs to be a national strategy to ensure it.

Authors: A Coulter
Journal: BMJ Date: 1998-07-25

4. New tests in cervical screening.

Authors: A E Raffle
Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-01-24 Impact factor: 79.321

5. Informed participation in screening is essential.

Authors: A E Raffle
Journal: BMJ Date: 1997-06-14

Review 6. Supporting consumer involvement in decision making: what constitutes quality in consumer health information?

Authors: V A Entwistle; T A Sheldon; A J Sowden; I S Watt
Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 2.038

7. Public understanding of medical screening.

Authors: J Cockburn; S Redman; D Hill; E Henry
Journal: J Med Screen Date: 1995 Impact factor: 2.136

8. Evidence-informed patient choice. Practical issues of involving patients in decisions about health care technologies.

Authors: V A Entwistle; T A Sheldon; A Sowden; I S Watt
Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 1998 Impact factor: 2.188

9. Detection rates for abnormal cervical smears: what are we screening for?

Authors: A E Raffle; B Alden; E F Mackenzie
Journal: Lancet Date: 1995-06-10 Impact factor: 79.321

10. Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment.

Authors: J Brett; J Austoker; G Ong
Journal: J Public Health Med Date: 1998-12

10 in total

24 in total

Gaining informed consent for screening. Is difficult--but many misconceptions need to be undone.

Review 1. Bridging the knowledge gap and communicating uncertainties for informed consent in cervical cytology screening; we need unbiased information and a culture change.

2. Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review.

3. Evidence based patient information. is important, so there needs to be a national strategy to ensure it.

4. New tests in cervical screening.

5. Informed participation in screening is essential.

Review 6. Supporting consumer involvement in decision making: what constitutes quality in consumer health information?

7. Public understanding of medical screening.

8. Evidence-informed patient choice. Practical issues of involving patients in decisions about health care technologies.

9. Detection rates for abnormal cervical smears: what are we screening for?

10. Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment.

1. Honesty about new screening programmes is best policy.

2. Making decisions about screening for ovarian cancer. Who chooses when an operation is worth having?

Review 3. Results of genetic testing: when confidentiality conflicts with a duty to warn relatives.

4. Should asymptomatic haemochromatosis be treated? Alternative strategies to appropriate diagnosis need testing.

5. Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice?

Review 6. Increasing informed uptake and non-uptake of screening: evidence from a systematic review.

Review 7. The potential contribution of decision aids to screening programmes.

8. Screening for cardiovascular risk: public health imperative or matter for individual informed choice?

Review 9. Women need better information about routine mammography.

Review 10. Ethics of evidence based medicine in the primary care setting.