Literature DB >> 11359542

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

R G Jepson1, C A Forbes, A J Sowden, R A Lewis.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To report data relating to the informed uptake of screening tests. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases, bibliographies and experts were used to identify relevant published and unpublished studies up until August 2000. INCLUSION CRITERIA: RCTs, quasi-RCTs and controlled trials of interventions aimed at increasing the informed uptake of screening. All participants were eligible as defined by the entry criteria of individual programmes. Studies had to report actual uptake and meet three out of four criteria used to define informed uptake. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Relevant studies were identified, data extracted and their validity assessed by two reviewers independently. Outcome data included screening uptake, knowledge, informed decision-making and attitudes to screening. A random-effects model was used to calculate individual relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. MAIN
RESULTS: Six controlled trials (five RCTs and one quasi-RCT), focusing on antenatal and prostate specific antigen screening, were included. All reported risks/benefits of screening and assessed knowledge. Two also assessed decision-making. Two reported risks/benefits to all randomized groups and evaluated different ways of presenting information. Neither found that interventions such as videos, information leaflets with decision trees, or touch screen computers conveyed any additional benefits over well-prepared leaflets.
CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence to suggest that changing the format of informed choice interventions in screening does not alter knowledge, satisfaction or decisions about screening. It is not clear whether informed choice in screening affects uptake. More well-designed RCTs are required and further research should also be directed towards the development of a valid instrument for measuring all components of informed choice in screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11359542      PMCID: PMC5060058          DOI: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00143.x

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


  26 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.  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 4.  Towards informed decisions about prenatal testing: a review.

Authors:  T M Marteau
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 3.050

5.  Patients' interpretations of verbal expressions of probability: implications for securing informed consent to medical interventions.

Authors:  D J Mazur; J F Merz
Journal:  Behav Sci Law       Date:  1994

6.  Screening for breast cancer. Recommendations are costly and short sighted.

Authors:  H Thornton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-04-15

7.  Predictors of interest in prostate-specific antigen screening and the impact of informed consent: what should we tell our patients?

Authors:  A M Wolf; J T Philbrick; J B Schorling
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 4.965

8.  Reaching targets in the national cervical screening programme: are current practices unethical?

Authors:  P Foster; C M Anderson
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.903

9.  A randomised trial of three methods of giving information about prenatal testing.

Authors:  J G Thornton; J Hewison; R J Lilford; A Vail
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-10-28

10.  Information and patient participation in screening for prostate cancer.

Authors:  B J Davison; P Kirk; L F Degner; T H Hassard
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  1999-07
View more
  26 in total

1.  Participation in screening programmes.

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

Review 2.  Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening.

Authors:  Alexandra Barratt; Lyndal Trevena; Heather M Davey; Kirsten McCaffery
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-08-28

3.  Informing children and parents about research.

Authors:  A Dawson; S A Spencer
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.791

4.  Considering consent: a structural equation modelling analysis of factors influencing decisional quality when accepting newborn screening.

Authors:  Stuart G Nicholls; Kevin W Southern
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 4.982

5.  Prenatal HIV testing in Ontario: knowledge, attitudes and practices of prenatal care providers in a province with low testing rates.

Authors:  Dale Guenter; June Carroll; Janusz Kaczorowski; John Sellors
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr

6.  Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: relationship to perceptions of cancer preventability, risk, and worry.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Richard P Moser; William M P Klein
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2006

7.  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

8.  Informed decision making before initiating screening mammography: does it occur and does it make a difference?

Authors:  Larissa Nekhlyudov; Rong Li; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: associations with cancer-related perceptions and behaviours in a US population survey.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Richard P Moser; William M P Klein
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 10.  A systematic review of decision support needs of parents making child health decisions.

Authors:  Cath Jackson; Francine M Cheater; Innes Reid
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.