Literature DB >> 16059426

"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.

Jacquelyn Burkell1, D Grant Campbell.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The authors analyzed online consumer health information related to screening tests to see how well this information meets known standards for supporting the understanding of test uncertainty. SETTING/
SUBJECTS: MedlinePlus documents regarding maternal serum screening (6), prostate-specific antigen testing (6), and screening mammography (6) were analyzed.
METHODOLOGY: The content of the documents was analyzed.
RESULTS: This study showed that most sites conscientiously report that tests are less than 100% accurate, but few provide important details about the level of uncertainty associated with test results. In particular, few resources give information about the predictive value of screening tests and have little mention of the fact that predictive value is influenced by the a priori likelihood of having the condition. DISCUSSION/
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that online consumer health information does not adequately support decisions about medical screening. We suggest a potential solution to the problem: metadata harvesting coupled with optimized presentation techniques to format personalized information about screening tests. Using these techniques, the empowerment of personal choice in matters of health decisions could become the de facto standard.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16059426      PMCID: PMC1175802     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc        ISSN: 1536-5050


  41 in total

1.  Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice?

Authors:  A E Raffle
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Informed choice in cancer screening.

Authors:  H G Welch
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-06-06       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Information about tests for breast cancer: what are we telling people?

Authors:  Emily Croft; Alexandra Barratt; Phyllis Butow
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 0.493

4.  Neuropsychologists' abilities to determine the predictive value of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Andrew S Labarge; Robert J McCaffrey; Timothy A Brown
Journal:  Arch Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.813

5.  Does the frame affect the picture? A study into how attitudes to screening for cancer are affected by the way benefits are expressed.

Authors:  D Sarfati; P Howden-Chapman; A Woodward; C Salmond
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.136

6.  Women's experience of maternal serum screening.

Authors:  J C Carroll; J B Brown; A J Reid; P Pugh
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.275

7.  Informed consent documents for BRCA1 and BRCA2 screening: how large is the readability gap?

Authors:  J N Gribble
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  1999-11

8.  Participation in maternal marker screening for Down syndrome: contribution of the information delivered to the decision-making process.

Authors:  V Seror; N Costet; S Aymé
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2001

9.  Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment.

Authors:  J Brett; J Austoker; G Ong
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  1998-12

10.  Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial.

Authors:  E Lidbrink; J Elfving; J Frisell; E Jonsson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-02-03
View more
  1 in total

1.  Developing a web-based information resource for palliative care: an action-research inspired approach.

Authors:  Annette F Street; Kathleen Swift; Merilyn Annells; Roger Woodruff; Terry Gliddon; Anne Oakley; Goetz Ottman
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2007-09-14       Impact factor: 2.796

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.