Literature DB >> 17507131

Patient perspectives on information and choice in cancer screening: a qualitative study in the UK.

Ruth Gillian Jepson1, Jenny Hewison, Andrew Thompson, David Weller.   

Abstract

The principle of informed choice has been recently incorporated into cancer screening policy. However, there is limited empirical or theoretical work on informed choice in this particular context. The main aim of the study reported here was to explore the information needs of people invited for screening, and to gain insights into the relationship between the information they wanted and the choices they made. A qualitative study (nine focus groups and 15 individual interviews) was undertaken with people who had contrasting experiences (and outcomes) of either breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening at two locations in Scotland, UK. Findings suggest that lay people define and conceptualise informed choice differently from policy makers. The study also found that information about the disease was as important to people as information on the risks and limitations of screening. However, information may have little part to play in the choices people make. Rather, it may have more impact on outcomes such as satisfaction and anxiety. An explicit policy aim in promoting informed choice is to enhance patient autonomy and to prevent people from being deceived or coerced. However, this research shows that the provision of evidence-based information alone does not necessarily mean that an informed choice is made. People may not read, want, or understand the information, and, additionally, they may not be able to carry out their intended choice. There may be personal barriers, such as physical or mental health problems and language, or organisational barriers, such as the availability of the service/intervention and access. Therefore, the term 'informed choice' might not be useful in this context.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17507131     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.04.009

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


  29 in total

1.  Why examining the desirability of health technology matters.

Authors:  Pascale Lehoux
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2008-02

2.  User's perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing quality colonoscopy services in Canada: a study protocol.

Authors:  Gilles Jobin; Marie Pierre Gagnon; Bernard Candas; Catherine Dubé; Anis Ben Abdeljelil; Sonya Grenier
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 7.327

3.  Reactions to a targeted intervention to increase fecal occult blood testing among average-risk adults waiting for screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  S Elizabeth McGregor; Paul Ritvo; Jill Tinmouth; Ashley Kornblum; Ronald Myers; Robert J Hilsden; Lawrence F Paszat; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.522

4.  Attendance to cervical cancer screening among Roma and non-Roma women living in North-Western region of Romania.

Authors:  Trude Andreassen; Adriana Melnic; Rejane Figueiredo; Kåre Moen; Ofelia Şuteu; Florian Nicula; Giske Ursin; Elisabete Weiderpass
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2018-04-27       Impact factor: 3.380

5.  Informed choice in bowel cancer screening: a qualitative study to explore how adults with lower education use decision aids.

Authors:  Sian K Smith; Paul Kearney; Lyndal Trevena; Alexandra Barratt; Don Nutbeam; Kirsten J McCaffery
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Improving the uptake of cervical screening in pregnant and recently postnatal women: a quality improvement project.

Authors:  Sarah Louise Coleridge; Alison Wiggans; Ellen Nelissen; Rob Bethune; Richard Blackwell; Andrew Bryant; Jo Morrison
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2022-05

7.  Attitudes and beliefs of non-participants in a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Nicola J Hall; Greg P Rubin; Christina Dobson; David Weller; Jane Wardle; Mary Ritchie; Colin J Rees
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-11-25       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  The prevalence of medical reasons for non-participation in the Scottish breast and bowel cancer screening programmes.

Authors:  L Mead; L Porteous; M Tait; R Stoker; S Payne; C Calvert; D Maxwell; S V Katikireddi
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 2.136

9.  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

10.  Communication about colorectal cancer screening in Britain: public preferences for an expert recommendation.

Authors:  J Waller; A Macedo; C von Wagner; A E Simon; C Jones; V Hammersley; D Weller; J Wardle; C Campbell
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.