Trial reportBMC public health2010
Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2010. 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled 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
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite 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.
methods417 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.
resultsAttitude 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).
conclusionsThese findings may explain why information about the benefits and harms of screening did not reduce diabetes screening attendance in the DICISION trial.
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.