Heleen M E van Agt1, Ida J Korfage2, Marie-Louise Essink-Bot3. 1. 1 Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands h.vanagt@erasmusmc.nl. 2. 1 Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 3. 2 Department of Public Health, Academic Medical Center / University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Informed decision making about participation has become an explicit purpose in invitations for screening programmes in western countries. An informed choice is commonly defined as based on: (i) adequate levels of knowledge of the screening and (ii) agreement between the invitee's values towards own screening participation and actual (intention to) participation. METHODS: We systematically reviewed published studies that empirically evaluated the effects of interventions aiming at enhancing informed decision making in screening programmes targeted at the general population. We focused on prenatal screening and neonatal screening for diseases of the foetus/new-born and screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer and colorectal cancer. The Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies published till April 2012, using the terms 'informed choice', 'decision making' and 'mass screening' separately and in combination and terms referring to the specific screening programmes. RESULTS: Of the 2238 titles identified, 15 studies were included, which evaluated decision aids (DAs), information leaflets, film, video, counselling and a specific screening visit for informed decision making in prenatal screening, breast and colorectal cancer screening. Most of the included studies evaluated DAs and showed improved knowledge and informed decision making. Due to the limited number of studies the results could not be synthesized. CONCLUSION: The empirical evidence regarding interventions to improve informed decision making in screening is limited. It is unknown which strategies to enhance informed decision making are most effective, although DAs are promising. Systematic development of interventions to enhance informed choices in screening deserves priority, especially in disadvantaged groups.
BACKGROUND: Informed decision making about participation has become an explicit purpose in invitations for screening programmes in western countries. An informed choice is commonly defined as based on: (i) adequate levels of knowledge of the screening and (ii) agreement between the invitee's values towards own screening participation and actual (intention to) participation. METHODS: We systematically reviewed published studies that empirically evaluated the effects of interventions aiming at enhancing informed decision making in screening programmes targeted at the general population. We focused on prenatal screening and neonatal screening for diseases of the foetus/new-born and screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer and colorectal cancer. The Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies published till April 2012, using the terms 'informed choice', 'decision making' and 'mass screening' separately and in combination and terms referring to the specific screening programmes. RESULTS: Of the 2238 titles identified, 15 studies were included, which evaluated decision aids (DAs), information leaflets, film, video, counselling and a specific screening visit for informed decision making in prenatal screening, breast and colorectal cancer screening. Most of the included studies evaluated DAs and showed improved knowledge and informed decision making. Due to the limited number of studies the results could not be synthesized. CONCLUSION: The empirical evidence regarding interventions to improve informed decision making in screening is limited. It is unknown which strategies to enhance informed decision making are most effective, although DAs are promising. Systematic development of interventions to enhance informed choices in screening deserves priority, especially in disadvantaged groups.
Authors: Swann Arp Adams; Catherine L Rohweder; Jennifer Leeman; Daniela B Friedman; Ziya Gizlice; Robin C Vanderpool; Natoshia Askelson; Alicia Best; Susan A Flocke; Karen Glanz; Linda K Ko; Michelle Kegler Journal: J Community Health Date: 2018-12
Authors: Jean Gekas; Sylvie Langlois; Vardit Ravitsky; François Audibert; David Gradus van den Berg; Hazar Haidar; François Rousseau Journal: Appl Clin Genet Date: 2016-02-04
Authors: Agathe Delanoë; Johanie Lépine; Stéphane Turcotte; Maria Esther Leiva Portocarrero; Hubert Robitaille; Anik Mc Giguère; Brenda J Wilson; Holly O Witteman; Isabelle Lévesque; Laurence Guillaumie; France Légaré Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Christine Campbell; Anne Douglas; Linda Williams; Geneviève Cezard; David H Brewster; Duncan Buchanan; Kathryn Robb; Greig Stanners; David Weller; Robert Jc Steele; Markus Steiner; Raj Bhopal Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Kirsty F Bennett; Jo Waller; Amanda J Chorley; Rebecca A Ferrer; Jessica B Haddrell; Laura Av Marlow Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Karen Bartholomew; Lifeng Zhou; Sue Crengle; Elizabeth Buswell; Anne Buckley; Peter Sandiford Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-09-09 Impact factor: 3.295