Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2010
Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Addressing Health Literacy in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS).Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Pooled it
- Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators to participation in a health check for cardiometabolic diseases in primary care: A systematic review.European journal of preventive cardiology · 2018Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Are interventions to increase the uptake of screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC family practice · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Enhancing informed choice to undergo health screening: a systematic review.American journal of health behavior · 2013Pooled it
- Recommendations on screening for type 2 diabetes in adults.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2012Guideline
- Non-participation in population-based disease prevention programs in general practice.BMC public health · 2012Pooled it
- Applying behavioural science to increase uptake of the NHS Health Check: a randomised controlled trial of gain- and loss-framed messaging in the national patient information leaflet.BMC public health · 2019Trial
- 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 · 2015Trial
- Socioeconomic factors and effect of evidence-based patient information about primary prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus--are there interactions?BMC research notes · 2014Trial
- Screening for type 2 diabetes and population mortality over 10 years (ADDITION-Cambridge): a cluster-randomised controlled trial.Lancet (London, England) · 2012Trial
- Effect of evidence based risk information on "informed choice" in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2011Trial
- Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study.BMC public health · 2010Trial
- Leveraging principles of behavioural economics to encourage patient engagement with population health screening programmes.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Improving Diabetes Screening in the Primary Care Clinic.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2023Article
- A Review of Decision Aids for Patients Considering More Than One Type of Invasive Treatment.The Journal of surgical research · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effect of an invitation promoting informed choice for screening with a standard invitation on attendance and motivation to engage in preventive action.
designRandomised controlled trial.
settingFour English general practices.
participants1272 people aged 40-69 years, at risk for diabetes, identified from practice registers using a validated risk score and invited to attend for screening.
interventionIntervention was a previously validated invitation to inform the decision to attend screening, presenting diabetes as a serious potential problem, and providing details of possible costs and benefits of screening and treatment in text and pie charts. This was compared with a brief, standard invitation simply describing diabetes as a serious potential problem.
main outcome measuresThe primary end point was attendance for screening. The secondary outcome measures were intention to make changes to lifestyle and satisfaction with decisions made among attenders.
resultsThe primary end point was analysed for all 1272 participants. 55.8% (353/633) of those in the informed choice group attended for screening, compared with 57.6% (368/639) in the standard invitation group (mean difference -1.8%, 95% confidence interval -7.3% to 3.6%; P=0.51). Attendance was lower among the more deprived group (most deprived third 47.5% v least deprived third 64.3%; P<0.001). Interaction between deprivation and effect of invitation type on attendance was not significant. Among attenders, intention to change behaviour was strong and unaffected by invitation type.
conclusionsProviding information to support choice did not adversely affect attendance for screening for diabetes. Those from more socially deprived groups were, however, less likely to attend, regardless of the type of invitation received. Further attention to invitation content alone is unlikely to achieve equity in uptake of preventive services.
trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN 73125647.
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.