Author:
Mann Eleanor,Kellar Ian,Sutton Stephen,Kinmonth Ann Louise,Hankins Matthew,Griffin Simon,Marteau Theresa M
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Despite concerns that facilitating informed choice would decrease diabetes screening uptake, 'informed choice' invitations that increased knowledge did not affect attendance (the DICISION trial). We explored possible reasons using data from an experimental analogue study undertaken to develop the invitations. We tested a model of the impact on knowledge, attitude and intentions of a diabetes screening invitation designed to facilitate informed choices.
Methods
417 men and women aged 40-69 recruited from town centres in the UK were randomised to receive either an invitation for diabetes screening designed to facilitate informed choice or a standard type of invitation. Knowledge of the invitation, attitude towards diabetes screening, and intention to attend for diabetes screening were assessed two weeks later.
Results
Attitude was a strong predictor of screening intentions (β = .64, p = .001). Knowledge added to the model but was a weak predictor of intentions (β = .13, p = .005). However, invitation type did not predict attitudes towards screening but did predict knowledge (β = -.45, p = .001), which mediated a small effect of invitation type on intention (indirect β = -.06, p = .017).
Conclusions
These findings may explain why information about the benefits and harms of screening did not reduce diabetes screening attendance in the DICISION trial.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference35 articles.
1. Raffle A, Gray J: Screening: Evidence and Practice. 2007, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
2. General Medical Council: Seeking Patients' Consent: The Ethical Considerations. 1998, London: GMC
3. National Screening Committee: 2nd Report of the UK National Screening Committee. 2000, London, UK: The Stationary Office, --- Either first page or author must be supplied..
4. Department for Health: Health Act 2009. 2009, London, UK: The Stationary Office, --- Either first page or author must be supplied..
5. Bekker H, Thornton JG, Airey CM, Connelly JB, Hewison J, Robinson MB, Lilleyman J, MacIntosh M, Maule AJ, Michie S: Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technology Assessment. 1999, 3 (1): 1-156.
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献