Informed choice for screening: implications for evaluation.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

1. Operationalizing and Measuring Informed Choice in Health Care: An Umbrella Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
   Pooled it
2. Measuring informed choice in population-based reproductive genetic screening: a systematic review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2015
   Pooled it
3. How does information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening alter the intention to be screened?: a randomized survey of Norwegian women.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2019
   Trial
4. Effects of numerical information on intention to participate in cervical screening among women offered HPV vaccination: a randomised study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2016
   Trial
5. The Role of Personalised Choice in Decision Support: A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Online Decision Aid for Prostate Cancer Screening.PloS one · 2016
   Trial
6. Using an informed consent in mammography screening: a randomized trial.Cancer medicine · 2015
   Trial
7. Financial incentives for increasing uptake of HPV vaccinations: a randomized controlled trial.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2015
   Trial
8. A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2010
   Trial
9. Psychosocial outcomes of three triage methods for the management of borderline abnormal cervical smears: an open randomised trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2010
   Trial
10. "Knowledge was clearly associated with education." epistemic positioning in the context of informed choice: a scoping review and secondary qualitative analysis.BMC medical ethics · 2025
    Article
11. Developing a General Population Screening Programme for Paediatric Type 1 Diabetes: Evidence from a Qualitative Study of the Perspectives and Attitudes of Parents.Pediatric diabetes · 2024
    Article
12. A framework to identify ethical concerns with ML-guided care workflows: a case study of mortality prediction to guide advance care planning.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
13. Decision-making styles in the context of colorectal cancer screening.BMC psychology · 2020
    Article
14. Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening.PloS one · 2020
    Article
15. One-Time Fecal Immunochemical Screening for Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in Patients with CKD (DETECT Study).Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2019
    Article
16. "To know or not to know…?" Push and pull in ever smokers lung screening uptake decision-making intentions.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Article
17. Do people with a different goal-orientation or specific focus make different decisions about colorectal cancer-screening participation?PloS one · 2019
    Article
18. Why are the public so positive about colorectal cancer screening?BMC public health · 2018
    Article
19. The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion?BMC public health · 2016
    Article
20. An empirical study of the 'underscreened' in organised cervical screening: experts focus on increasing opportunity as a way of reducing differences in screening rates.BMC medical ethics · 2016
    Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as