ReviewPreventive medicine reports2016
Common methods of measuring 'informed choice' in screening participation: Challenges and future directions.
Review in Preventive medicine reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Operationalizing and Measuring Informed Choice in Health Care: An Umbrella Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- Time for a New Norm: Experiences of 'Being Informed' and 'Having Choice' for Prenatal Screening for Chromosomal Conditions: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- "Knowledge was clearly associated with education." epistemic positioning in the context of informed choice: a scoping review and secondary qualitative analysis.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Pilot study of lung cancer screening for survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma.Haematologica · 2024Article
- Investigating informed choice in screening programmes: a mixed methods analysis.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Factors affecting intention to screen after being informed of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a study in 5 European countries in 2021.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2022Article
- Women's conceptual knowledge about breast cancer screening and overdiagnosis in Norway: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Screening for scoliosis - New recommendations, old dilemmas, no straight solutions.World journal of orthopedics · 2020Review
- The association between health literacy and colorectal cancer screening uptake in a publicly funded screening program in Denmark: Cross-sectional study.Preventive medicine reports · 2020Article
- Mapping the evidence of experiences related to adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Article
- Do Non-participants at Screening have a Different Threshold for an Acceptable Benefit-Harm Ratio than Participants? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2019Article
- Informed decision-making based on a leaflet in the context of prostate cancer screening.Patient education and counseling · 2019Article
- Skills for Shared Decision-Making: Evaluation of a Health Literacy Program for Consumers with Lower Literacy Levels.Health literacy research and practice · 2019Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and worries among different health literacy groups before receiving first invitation to colorectal cancer screening: Cross-sectional study.Preventive medicine reports · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- A cross-sectional survey assessing factors associated with reading cancer screening information: previous screening behaviour, demographics and decision-making style.BMC public health · 2017Article
- Ethnic minority women prefer strong recommendations to be screened for cancer.BMC public health · 2017Article
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
Abstract
There is general agreement among public health practitioners, academics, and policymakers that people offered health screening tests should be able to make informed choices about whether to accept. Robust measures are necessary in order to gauge the extent to which informed choice is achieved in practice and whether efforts to improve it have succeeded. This review aims to add to the literature on how to improve methods of measuring informed choice. We discuss and critique commonly-used approaches and outline possible alternative methods that might address the issues identified. We explore the challenges of defining what information should be provided about screening and hence understood by service users, appraise the use of 'thresholds' to define e.g. positive attitudes towards screening, and describe problems inherent in conceptualising 'informed choice' as a single dichotomous outcome that either does or does not occur. Suggestions for future research include providing greater detail on why particular aspects of screening information were considered important, analysing knowledge and attitude measures at an ordinal or continuous level (avoiding problematic decisions about dichotomising data in order to set thresholds), and reconceptualising informed choice as a multifactorial set of outcomes, rather than a unitary one.
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.