Literature DB >> 32469889

Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening.

Linda N Douma1,2, Ellen Uiters2, Marcel F Verweij3, Danielle R M Timmermans1,2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: It is increasingly considered important that people make an autonomous and informed decision concerning colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, the realisation of autonomy within the concept of informed decision-making might be interpreted too narrowly. Additionally, relatively little is known about what the eligible population believes to be a 'good' screening decision. Therefore, we aimed to explore how the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making relate to how the eligible CRC screening population makes their decision and when they believe to have made a 'good' screening decision.
METHODS: We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with the eligible CRC screening population (eighteen CRC screening participants and nine non-participants). The general topics discussed concerned how people made their CRC screening decision, how they experienced making this decision and when they considered they had made a 'good' decision.
RESULTS: Most interviewees viewed a 'good' CRC screening decision as one based on both reasoning and feeling/intuition, and that is made freely. However, many CRC screening non-participants experienced a certain social pressure to participate. All CRC screening non-participants viewed making an informed decision as essential. This appeared to be the case to a lesser extent for CRC screening participants. For most, experiences and values were involved in their decision-making.
CONCLUSION: Our sample of the eligible CRC screening population viewed aspects related to the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making as important for making a 'good' CRC screening decision. However, in particular the existence of a social norm may be affecting a true autonomous decision-making process. Additionally, the present concept of informed decision-making with its strong emphasis on making a fully informed and well-considered decision does not appear to be entirely reflective of the process in practice. More efforts could be made to attune to the diverse values and factors that are involved in deciding about CRC screening participation.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32469889     DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233308

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  4 in total

1.  Decision-making in screening positive participants who follow up with colonoscopy in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme: A mixed-method study.

Authors:  Lucinda Bertels; Bart Knottnerus; Lottie Bastiaans; Augustina Danquah; Henk van; Evelien Dekker; Kristel van
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2021-09-17       Impact factor: 3.955

2.  Motives for non-adherence to colonoscopy advice after a positive colorectal cancer screening test result: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Lucinda Bertels; Peter Lucassen; Kristel van Asselt; Evelien Dekker; Henk van Weert; Bart Knottnerus
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 2.581

3.  Why do people take part in atrial fibrillation screening? Qualitative interview study in English primary care.

Authors:  Sarah Hoare; Alison Powell; Rakesh Narendra Modi; Natalie Armstrong; Simon J Griffin; Jonathan Mant; Jenni Burt
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Office workers' perspectives on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Lorraine L Landais; Judith G M Jelsma; Idske R Dotinga; Danielle R M Timmermans; Evert A L M Verhagen; Olga C Damman
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2022-03-30       Impact factor: 3.295

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.