Literature DB >> 11359541

The potential contribution of decision aids to screening programmes.

V Entwistle1.   

Abstract

Decision aids for health service users facing decisions about screening have been developed for controversial tests (such as that for prostate specific antigen as a screen for prostate cancer) and tests in which outcomes are value laden (as in some prenatal tests). The potential usefulness of decision aids in established screening programmes (such as those offering mammography to women over 50 in the United Kingdom) remains to be explored. In principle any decision about screening test acceptance may be sensitive to individual preferences and could be supported by an appropriate decision aid. Decision aids might also help reduce some of the problems currently associated with public misconceptions about screening. Objections to the promotion of individual choice regarding screening tests usually take the form of concern that this will lead to unacceptable losses in terms of population health gain and health system efficiency, or of fear that individuals will choose options that are wrong for them. The introduction of decision aids could alleviate both of these objections to some extent. Decision aids could encourage people to consider the social as well as the individual consequences of their choices and they should promote choices consistent with personal values. Although there are strong arguments in principle for introducing decision aids into established screening programmes, their potential needs to be confirmed in empirical evaluations and there may be many contentious decisions and practical challenges to be overcome in order to implement them.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11359541      PMCID: PMC5060054          DOI: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00141.x

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


  28 in total

Review 1.  Feasibility and effects of decision aids.

Authors:  S Molenaar; M A Sprangers; F C Postma-Schuit; E J Rutgers; J Noorlander; J Hendriks; H C de Haes
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2000 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Implementing honesty about screening using community informed consent.

Authors:  L Irwig; P Glasziou
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-08-12

3.  Psychological consequences of screening mammography.

Authors:  J Cockburn; M Staples; S F Hurley; T De Luise
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 2.136

4.  Screening could seriously damage your health.

Authors:  S Stewart-Brown; A Farmer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-02-22

5.  Contentious screening decisions: does the choice matter?

Authors:  S G Pauker; J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-04-24       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decisions.

Authors:  J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-06-30       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  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

8.  Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCA1 gene testing.

Authors:  C Lerman; B Biesecker; J L Benkendorf; J Kerner; A Gomez-Caminero; C Hughes; M M Reed
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1997-01-15       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Implementing shared decision-making in routine practice: barriers and opportunities.

Authors:  Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Diane Valade; Catherine Orlowski; Catherine Draus; Barbara Nabozny-Valerio; Susan Keiser
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Development of a patient decision aid for choice of surgical treatment for breast cancer.

Authors:  Carol A. Sawka; Vivek Goel; Catherine A. Mahut; Glen A. Taylor; Elaine C. Thiel; Annette M. O'Connor; Ida Ackerman; Janet H. Burt; Elaine H. Gort
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.377

View more
  7 in total

1.  Participation in screening programmes.

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

2.  Treatment decision aids: conceptual issues and future directions.

Authors:  Cathy Charles; Amiram Gafni; Tim Whelan; Mary Ann O'Brien
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  A randomized controlled trial of a goals-of-care video for elderly patients admitted to skilled nursing facilities.

Authors:  Angelo E Volandes; Gary H Brandeis; Aretha Delight Davis; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Muriel R Gillick; Yuchiao Chang; Elizabeth S Walker-Corkery; Eileen Mann; Susan L Mitchell
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2012-05-04       Impact factor: 2.947

4.  Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process.

Authors:  Glyn Elwyn; Annette O'Connor; Dawn Stacey; Robert Volk; Adrian Edwards; Angela Coulter; Richard Thomson; Alexandra Barratt; Michael Barry; Steven Bernstein; Phyllis Butow; Aileen Clarke; Vikki Entwistle; Deb Feldman-Stewart; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Nora Moumjid; Al Mulley; Cornelia Ruland; Karen Sepucha; Alan Sykes; Tim Whelan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-08-14

5.  Augmenting advance care planning in poor prognosis cancer with a video decision aid: a preintervention-postintervention study.

Authors:  Angelo E Volandes; Tomer T Levin; Susan Slovin; Richard D Carvajal; Eileen M O'Reilly; Mary Louise Keohan; Maria Theodoulou; Maura Dickler; John F Gerecitano; Michael Morris; Andrew S Epstein; Anastazia Naka-Blackstone; Elizabeth S Walker-Corkery; Yuchiao Chang; Ariela Noy
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Communicating with women about mammography.

Authors:  Berta M Geller; Jane Zapka; Solveig S-H Hofvind; Astrid Scharpantgen; Livia Giordano; Noriaki Ohuchi; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.037

7.  Patient factors in the implementation of decision aids in general practice: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Vanita Bhavnani; Brian Fisher
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 3.377

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.