ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2008
The value of choice: development of a new measurement tool.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Science and Social Validity of Companion Animal Welfare: Functionally Defined Parameters in a Multidisciplinary Field.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- Generating the perception of choice: the remarkable malleability of option-listing.Sociology of health & illness · 2018Article
- Knowledge mobilisation: an ethnographic study of the influence of lay mindlines on eczema self-management in primary care in the UK.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Patient perceptions and expectations of an anticoagulation service: a quantitative comparison study of clinic-based testers and patient self-testers.Scandinavian journal of caring sciences · 2015Article
- Born to choose: the origins and value of the need for control.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2010Review
- Patient choice and evidence based decisions: The case of complementary therapies.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2009Article
- Choosing, deciding, or participating: what do patients want in primary care?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008Article
- The value of choice: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent policy advocates individual choice across a number of domains, including healthcare provision.
aimTo develop a new tool for measuring people's beliefs about the value of choice in the context of healthcare provision. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional survey.
settingFour general practices in South East England.
methodNine items relating to health and general domains, derived from in-depth interviews with 22 participants, were collated into a questionnaire. This formed the measurement tool called the Choice Questionnaire (ChQ), which was completed by 823 consecutive patients (response rate = 81.2%).
resultsPrincipal components analysis resulted in two factors: having choices (for example, 'I like to know all the possible ways in which I could be treated') and making choices (for example, 'I am happy for the doctor to make decisions for me'). These two constructs showed good internal consistency. One item was deleted, resulting in the 8-item ChQ. Beliefs about choice in health and general domains were not discrete. The vast majority of participants endorsed having choices as positive. In contrast, beliefs about the value of making choice were more mixed. A greater endorsement of both these aspects of choice was related to higher educational status.
conclusionResults from this study indicate that choice can be usefully conceptualised as consisting of two separate constructs: having choices and making choices. The 8-item ChQ has an interpretable factor structure and has been shown to be reliable. It could be used in research to assess beliefs about the value of choice or in the clinical setting to establish whether a patient would prefer to be provided with options or to be managed in a more paternalistic way.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.