Literature DB >> 15316908

Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening?

Barbara K Rimer1, Peter A Briss, Paula K Zeller, Evelyn C Y Chan, Steven H Woolf.   

Abstract

Interest in informed decision making (IDM) has grown in recent years. Greater patient involvement in decision making is consistent with recommendations to improve health care quality. This report provides an overview of IDM; clarifies the differences between IDM, shared decision making (SDM), and informed consent; and reviews the evidence to date about IDM for cancer screening. The authors also make recommendations for research. We define IDM as occurring when an individual understands the disease or condition being addressed and comprehends what the clinical service involves, including its benefits, risks, limitations, alternatives, and uncertainties; has considered his or her preferences and makes a decision consistent with them; and believes he or she has participated in decision making at the level desired. IDM interventions are used to facilitate informed decisions. The authors reviewed the evidence to date for IDM and cancer screening based primarily on published meta-analyses and a recent report for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Guide to Community Preventive Services. IDM and SDM interventions, such as decision aids, result in improved knowledge, beliefs, risk perceptions, and combinations of these. Little or no evidence exists, however, regarding whether these interventions result in 1) participation in decision making at a level consistent with patient preferences or 2) effects on patient satisfaction with the decision-making process. These variables generally either were not assessed or were not reported in the articles reviewed. Results of interventions on uptake of screening were variable. After exposure to IDM/SDM interventions, most studies showed small decreases in prostate cancer screening, whereas four studies on breast and colorectal cancer screening showed small increases. Few data are available by which to evaluate current practices in cancer screening IDM. Patient participation in IDM should be facilitated for those who prefer it. More research is needed to assess the benefits of IDM/SDM interventions and to tailor interventions to individuals who are most likely to desire and benefit from them. There are many system barriers to IDM/SDM and few tools. More work is needed in this area as well. In addition, research is needed to learn how to incorporate IDM into ongoing clinical practice and to determine whether there are unintended negative consequences of IDM.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Health Care and Public Health; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15316908     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20512

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  107 in total

Review 1.  Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings in cancer screening.

Authors:  Roshan Bastani; K Robin Yabroff; Ronald E Myers; Beth Glenn
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Translation through argumentation in medical research and physician-citizenship.

Authors:  Gordon R Mitchell; Kathleen M McTigue
Journal:  J Med Humanit       Date:  2012-06

3.  Avoiding piecemeal research on participation in cervical cancer screening: the advantages of a social identity framework.

Authors:  Candice Tribe; Janine Webb
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Differences in information seeking among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer patients: results from a population-based survey.

Authors:  Rebekah H Nagler; Stacy W Gray; Anca Romantan; Bridget J Kelly; Angela DeMichele; Katrina Armstrong; J Sanford Schwartz; Robert C Hornik
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2010-10-08

5.  Moving towards shared decision making in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; Deborah L Helitzer
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Maximizing informed cancer screening decisions.

Authors:  Louise C Walter; Carmen L Lewis
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2007-10-22

7.  How does patient-clinician information engagement influence self-reported cancer-related problems?: findings from a longitudinal analysis.

Authors:  Andy S L Tan; Angel Bourgoin; Stacy W Gray; Katrina Armstrong; Robert C Hornik
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-01-10       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  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 9.  Decision making about cancer screening: an assessment of the state of the science and a suggested research agenda from the ASPO Behavioral Oncology and Cancer Communication Special Interest Group.

Authors:  Marc T Kiviniemi; Jennifer L Hay; Aimee S James; Isaac M Lipkus; Helen I Meissner; Michael Stefanek; Jamie L Studts; John F P Bridges; David R Close; Deborah O Erwin; Resa M Jones; Karen Kaiser; Kathryn M Kash; Kimberly M Kelly; Simon J Craddock Lee; Jason Q Purnell; Laura A Siminoff; Susan T Vadaparampil; Catharine Wang
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Racial/ethnic disparities in knowledge about risks and benefits of breast cancer treatment: does it matter where you go?

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley; Angela Fagerlin; Nancy K Janz; Steven J Katz
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 3.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.