Literature DB >> 15800356

How should we measure informed choice? The case of cancer screening.

R G Jepson1, J Hewison, A G H Thompson, D Weller.   

Abstract

Informed choice is increasingly recognised as important in supporting patient autonomy and ensuring that people are neither deceived nor coerced. In cancer screening the emphasis has shifted away from just promoting the benefits of screening to providing comprehensive information to enable people to make an informed choice. Cancer screening programmes in the UK now have policies in place which state that it is their responsibility to ensure that individuals are making an individual informed choice. There is a need to evaluate whether such policies mean that those people invited for screening are making informed choices, and how comprehensive information affects other variables such as uptake, cost effectiveness, and satisfaction. At the present time, there is no validated measure of informed choice in cancer screening. Such a measure could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to increase informed choice and levels of informed choice in a population invited for screening. It could encourage health professionals to be accountable. Factors important when measuring informed choice in cancer screening include an individual's understanding of the limitations of screening, the ability to make an autonomous choice, and the difference between choice and behaviour.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Health Care and Public Health; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15800356      PMCID: PMC1734132          DOI: 10.1136/jme.2003.005793

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  21 in total

Review 1.  Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences.

Authors:  A Edwards; G Elwyn
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

2.  Ethical analysis in public health.

Authors:  Marc J Roberts; Michael R Reich
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-03-23       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 3.  Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Silvana Unigwe; Glyn Elwyn; Kerenza Hood
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-27

4.  Should public health respect autonomy?

Authors:  S A Hall
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 5.  Theories of consent.

Authors:  P Alderson; C Goodey
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-11-07

6.  Informed participation in screening is essential.

Authors:  A E Raffle
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-06-14

Review 7.  Variability in patient preferences for participating in medical decision making: implication for the use of decision support tools.

Authors:  A Robinson; R Thomson
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

8.  The importance of patient preference in the decision to screen for prostate cancer. Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team.

Authors:  A B Flood; J E Wennberg; R F Nease; F J Fowler; J Ding; L M Hynes
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Some limits of informed consent.

Authors:  O O'Neill
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.903

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
  30 in total

Review 1.  Informed choice for screening: implications for evaluation.

Authors:  Les Irwig; Kirsten McCaffery; Glenn Salkeld; Patrick Bossuyt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-05-13

2.  Informing Women and Their Physicians about Recommendations for Adjunct Breast MRI Screening: A Cohort Study.

Authors:  John T Brinton; Lora D Barke; Mary E Freivogel; Tiffany C Talley; Michelle D Lexin; Alicia L Drew; Rachel B Beam; Deborah H Glueck
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2017-02-03

3.  An interactive website to aid young women's choice of contraception: feasibility and efficacy RCT.

Authors:  Judith Stephenson; Julia V Bailey; Ann Blandford; Nataliya Brima; Andrew Copas; Preethy D'Souza; Anasztazia Gubijev; Rachael Hunter; Jill Shawe; Greta Rait; Sandy Oliver
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 4.014

Review 4.  Measuring informed choice in population-based reproductive genetic screening: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alice Grace Ames; Sylvia Ann Metcalfe; Alison Dalton Archibald; Rony Emily Duncan; Jon Emery
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 5.  Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.

Authors:  Adrian G K Edwards; Gurudutt Naik; Harry Ahmed; Glyn J Elwyn; Timothy Pickles; Kerry Hood; Rebecca Playle
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28

Review 6.  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

7.  Non-maleficence and the ethics of consent to cancer screening.

Authors:  Lotte Elton
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2020-09-21       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  Development of a fragile X syndrome (FXS) knowledge scale: towards a modified multidimensional measure of informed choice for FXS population carrier screening.

Authors:  Alice G Ames; Alice Jaques; Obioha C Ukoumunne; Alison D Archibald; Rony E Duncan; Jon Emery; Sylvia A Metcalfe
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Public perceptions of communicating information about bowel cancer screening.

Authors:  Chris Woodrow; Eila Watson; Linda Rozmovits; Ronald Parker; Joan Austoker
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Uptake in cancer screening programmes: a priority in cancer control.

Authors:  D P Weller; C Campbell
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-12-03       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.