Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19232112›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2009

Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): trial protocol.

Eleanor Mann, A Toby Prevost, Simon Griffin, Ian Kellar, Stephen Sutton, Michael Parker, Simon Sanderson, Ann Louise Kinmonth, Theresa M Marteau

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Eleanor MannPsychology Department (at Guy's), Guy's Campus, London, SE1 9RT, UK. eleanor.mann@iop.kcl.ac.uk
A Toby Prevost
Simon Griffin
Ian Kellar
Stephen Sutton
Michael Parker
Simon Sanderson
Ann Louise Kinmonth
Theresa M Marteau

Funding

Medical Research Council G0200391Medical Research Council MC_U106179474Wellcome Trust 076838
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening invitations have traditionally been brief, providing information only about population benefits. Presenting information about the limited individual benefits and potential harms of screening to inform choice may reduce attendance, particularly in the more socially deprived. At the same time, amongst those who attend, it might increase motivation to change behavior to reduce risks. This trial assesses the impact on attendance and motivation to change behavior of an invitation that facilitates informed choices about participating in diabetes screening in general practice. Three hypotheses are tested: 1. Attendance at screening for diabetes is lower following an informed choice compared with a standard invitation. 2. There is an interaction between the type of invitation and social deprivation: attendance following an informed choice compared with a standard invitation is lower in those who are more rather than less socially deprived. 3. Amongst those who attend for screening, intentions to change behavior to reduce risks of complications in those subsequently diagnosed with diabetes are stronger following an informed choice invitation compared with a standard invitation. METHOD/

design1500 people aged 40-69 years without known diabetes but at high risk are identified from four general practice registers in the east of England. 1200 participants are randomized by households to receive one of two invitations to attend for diabetes screening at their general practices. The intervention invitation is designed to facilitate informed choices, and comprises detailed information and a decision aid. A comparison invitation is based on those currently in use. Screening involves a finger-prick blood glucose test. The primary outcome is attendance for diabetes screening. The secondary outcome is intention to change health related behaviors in those attenders diagnosed with diabetes. A sample size of 1200 ensures 90% power to detect a 10% difference in attendance between arms, and in an estimated 780 attenders, 80% power to detect a 0.2 sd difference in intention between arms. DISCUSSION: The DICISION trial is a rigorous pragmatic denominator based clinical trial of an informed choice invitation to diabetes screening, which addresses some key limitations of previous trials.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdultAgedClinical ProtocolsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansInformed ConsentMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPovertyUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID19232112
PMCPMC2666721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.