Literature DB >> 14990371

Women's preferences for and views on decision-making for diagnostic tests.

Heather M Davey1, Jacqueline Lim, Phyllis N Butow, Alexandra L Barratt, Sally Redman.   

Abstract

It is unclear whether the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) provides a suitable framework for eliciting women's preferences for involvement in decision-making about diagnostic tests. The aims of this study were to assess the appropriateness of the role label approach for eliciting preferences for decision-making about diagnostic tests and to elicit women's preferences for, and views about, decision-making for diagnostic tests. In-depth, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 37 women who had previously participated in a population-based telephone survey. Analysis of the interview transcripts revealed that qualitative questions may be a more sensitive methodology for eliciting preferences than the role label approach as exemplified by the CPS. The analysis identified a number of issues associated with decision-making for diagnostic tests, including defining what a decision is, the rationale for the preference and factors that influence the preferred role such as the perceived seriousness of the test and potential outcomes. The role label approach used to elicit preferences for involvement in decision-making may be too simplistic. It may not fully capture the complexity of women's thoughts about test decision-making, including how they define a decision and what factors affect their preference.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14990371     DOI: 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00339-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  18 in total

1.  Arthritis patients' motives for (not) wanting to be involved in medical decision-making and the factors that hinder or promote patient involvement.

Authors:  Ingrid Nota; Constance H C Drossaert; Erik Taal; Mart A F J van de Laar
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 2.980

2.  Considerations of 'fit' and patient involvement in decision making.

Authors:  Vikki A Entwistle
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Measuring decisional control preferences in men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Nora B Henrikson; B Joyce Davison; Donna L Berry
Journal:  J Psychosoc Oncol       Date:  2011

4.  Inside the black box of shared decision making: distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Views of treatment decision making from adolescents with chronic illnesses and their parents: a pilot study.

Authors:  Jennifer M Knopf; Richard W Hornung; Gail B Slap; Robert F DeVellis; Maria T Britto
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Women's perceptions of their involvement in treatment decision making for early stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Mary Ann O'Brien; Cathy Charles; Timothy J Whelan; Peter M Ellis; Amiram Gafni; Peter Lovrics
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2013-01-24       Impact factor: 3.603

7.  How is shared decision-making defined among African-Americans with diabetes?

Authors:  Monica E Peek; Michael T Quinn; Rita Gorawara-Bhat; Angela Odoms-Young; Shannon C Wilson; Marshall H Chin
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2008-08-05

8.  Challenges of implementing collaborative models of decision making with trans-identified patients.

Authors:  Jodie M Dewey
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Reconciling the principle of patient autonomy with the practice of informed consent: decision-making about prognostication in uveal melanoma.

Authors:  Sharon A Cook; Bertil Damato; Ernie Marshall; Peter Salmon
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Decision making and referral from primary care for possible lung and colorectal cancer: a qualitative study of patients' experiences.

Authors:  Jon Banks; Fiona M Walter; Nicola Hall; Katie Mills; William Hamilton; Katrina M Turner
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 5.386

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.