Literature DB >> 11359540

A measure of informed choice.

T M Marteau1, E Dormandy, S Michie.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop a measure of informed choice. CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT: The measure is based on the following definition of an informed choice: one that is based on relevant knowledge, consistent with the decision-maker's values and behaviourally implemented. The measure comprises an eight-item scale of knowledge, a four-item scale assessing attitudes towards undergoing the screening test and a record of test uptake. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-six women awaiting their first antenatal clinic appointments. MEASURE DEVELOPMENT: In women offered a screening test in pregnancy, the internal reliability of both the knowledge and the attitude scales was acceptable (alpha coefficients 0.82 and 0.83, respectively). Of the 42 women completing both scales, 18 were classified as having made an informed choice, and 24 were classified as having made an uninformed choice.
CONCLUSION: The results of this preliminary study provide some evidence to support the feasibility of conceptualizing and measuring informed choices regarding screening using a brief measure assessing knowledge and attitudes. The validity and utility of this approach awaits further studies, involving larger numbers of participants, offered different screening tests.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11359540      PMCID: PMC5060053          DOI: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00140.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  14 in total

1.  Screening for breast and cervical cancer as a common cause for litigation. A false negative result may be one of an irreducible minimum of errors.

Authors:  R M Wilson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-05-20

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.  Lack of knowledge in health professionals: a barrier to providing information to patients?

Authors:  D K Smith; J Slack; R W Shaw; T M Marteau
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1994-06

4.  Uptake and acceptability of antenatal HIV testing: randomised controlled trial of different methods of offering the test.

Authors:  W M Simpson; F D Johnstone; F M Boyd; D J Goldberg; G J Hart; R J Prescott
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-01-24

Review 5.  Measuring the involvement of patients in shared decision-making: a systematic review of instruments.

Authors:  G Elwyn; A Edwards; S Mowle; M Wensing; C Wilkinson; P Kinnersley; R Grol
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2001-04

6.  Uptake of cystic fibrosis testing in primary care: supply push or demand pull?

Authors:  H Bekker; M Modell; G Denniss; A Silver; C Mathew; M Bobrow; T Marteau
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-06-12

7.  Interacting effects of information and coping style in adapting to gynecologic stress: should the doctor tell all?

Authors:  S M Miller; C E Mangan
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1983-07

Review 8.  False-negative results in screening programmes: systematic review of impact and implications.

Authors:  M P Petticrew; A J Sowden; D Lister-Sharp; K Wright
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.014

9.  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

10.  Offering cystic fibrosis carrier screening to an HMO population: factors associated with utilization.

Authors:  E S Tambor; B A Bernhardt; G A Chase; R R Faden; G Geller; K J Hofman; N A Holtzman
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 11.025

View more
  237 in total

1.  Participation in screening programmes.

Authors:  V Entwistle
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 2.  Increasing informed uptake and non-uptake of screening: evidence from a systematic review.

Authors:  R G Jepson; C A Forbes; A J Sowden; R A Lewis
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 3.  Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Silvana Unigwe; Glyn Elwyn; Kerenza Hood
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-27

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

Authors:  Theresa M Marteau; Ann Louise Kinmonth
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-07-13

5.  Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study.

Authors:  Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-01-17

6.  Information related to prenatal genetic counseling: interpretation by adolescents, effects on risk perception and ethical implications.

Authors:  Philippe A Melas; Susanne Georgsson Öhman; Niklas Juth; The-Hung Bui
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-10-25       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Commentary: a sociologist's view on community genetics.

Authors:  Aviad E Raz
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2010-02-25

Review 8.  Carrier screening for beta-thalassaemia: a review of international practice.

Authors:  Nicole E Cousens; Clara L Gaff; Sylvia A Metcalfe; Martin B Delatycki
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 4.246

9.  Breast Cancer Survivors' Knowledge of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer following Genetic Counseling: An Exploration of General and Survivor-Specific Knowledge Items.

Authors:  Courtney L Scherr; Juliette Christie; Susan T Vadaparampil
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 2.000

10.  Talking Points: Women's Information Needs for Informed Decision-Making About Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Down Syndrome.

Authors:  Aimée C Dane; Madelyn Peterson; Yvette D Miller
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-03-17       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.