Literature DB >> 12900094

Informed choice: understanding knowledge in the context of screening uptake.

Susan Michie1, Elizabeth Dormandy, Theresa M Marteau.   

Abstract

This study evaluates a scale measuring knowledge about a screening test and investigates the association between knowledge, uptake and attitudes towards screening. One thousand four hundred ninety-nine pregnant women completed the knowledge scale of the multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC). Three hundred forty-five of these women and 152 professionals providing antenatal care also rated the importance of the knowledge items. Item characteristic curves show that, with one exception, the knowledge items reflect a spread of difficulty and are able to discriminate between people. All items were seen as essential or helpful by both women and health professionals, with two items seen as particularly important and one as unimportant. There were some differences between health professionals, women with low risk results and women with high risk results. Knowledge was not associated with uptake, attitude, or the extent to which uptake was consistent with women's attitudes towards undergoing the test.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12900094     DOI: 10.1016/s0738-3991(03)00044-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  30 in total

1.  Information and decision support needs of parents considering amniocentesis: interviews with pregnant women and health professionals.

Authors:  Marie-Anne Durand; Mareike Stiel; Jacky Boivin; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  "What does this mean?" How Web-based consumer health information fails to support information seeking in the pursuit of informed consent for screening test decisions.

Authors:  Jacquelyn Burkell; D Grant Campbell
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2005-07

Review 3.  Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: a review.

Authors:  Z Lohn; S Adam; P H Birch; J M Friedman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-05-26       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Physicians' opinions on patients' requests for specific treatments and examinations.

Authors:  Hanna K Toiviainen; Lauri Vuorenkoski; Elina Hemminki
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Choosing not to undergo predictive genetic testing for hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes: expanding our understanding of decliners and declining.

Authors:  Louise A Keogh; Heather Niven; Alison Rutstein; Louisa Flander; Clara Gaff; Mark Jenkins
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-02-14

6.  Why do pregnant women accept or decline prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome?

Authors:  Ellen Ternby; Ove Axelsson; Göran Annerén; Peter Lindgren; Charlotta Ingvoldstad
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2016-07-20

7.  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

8.  What do patients prefer: informed consent models for genetic carrier testing.

Authors:  K E Ormond; M Iris; S Banuvar; J Minogue; G J Annas; S Elias
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-05-11       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Ambivalence toward undergoing invasive prenatal testing: an exploration of its origins.

Authors:  Julie Chevalier Sapp; Sara Chandros Hull; Shelby Duffer; Sarah Zornetzer; Erica Sutton; Theresa M Marteau; Barbara Bowles Biesecker
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.050

10.  "Is it really worth it to get tested?": primary care patients' impressions of predictive SNP testing for colon cancer.

Authors:  Kara-Grace Leventhal; William Tuong; Beth N Peshkin; Yasmin Salehizadeh; Mary B Fishman; Susan Eggly; Kevin FitzGerald; Marc D Schwartz; Kristi D Graves
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.