ArticlePloS one2020
Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Improving Breast Cancer Outcomes by Enhanced Activities in Early Detection and Diagnosis: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials in High-Income Contexts With Universal Healthcare Coverage.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterPooled it
- Predicting the Determinants of Colorectal Cancer Screening Behaviors Using Protection Motivation Theory: A Cross-Sectional Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling Analysis.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Article
- How do women comply with cancer screenings? A study in four regions of France.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Awareness of a disconnect between the value assigned to health and the effort devoted to health increases the intention to become more physically active.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2023Article
- Informed Decision-Making and Capabilities in Population-based Cancer Screening.Public health ethics · 2022Article
- Office workers' perspectives on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Why do people take part in atrial fibrillation screening? Qualitative interview study in English primary care.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Decision-making in screening positive participants who follow up with colonoscopy in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme: A mixed-method study.Psycho-oncology · 2022Article
- Motives for non-adherence to colonoscopy advice after a positive colorectal cancer screening test result: a qualitative study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2020Article
- Decision-making styles in the context of colorectal cancer screening.BMC psychology · 2020Article
- Prostate Cancer Screening Decisions: Which Aspects Do Men Value Most? An Interview Study With Men Invited to a Population-Based Program.American journal of men's healthArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIt is increasingly considered important that people make an autonomous and informed decision concerning colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, the realisation of autonomy within the concept of informed decision-making might be interpreted too narrowly. Additionally, relatively little is known about what the eligible population believes to be a 'good' screening decision. Therefore, we aimed to explore how the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making relate to how the eligible CRC screening population makes their decision and when they believe to have made a 'good' screening decision.
methodsWe conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with the eligible CRC screening population (eighteen CRC screening participants and nine non-participants). The general topics discussed concerned how people made their CRC screening decision, how they experienced making this decision and when they considered they had made a 'good' decision.
resultsMost interviewees viewed a 'good' CRC screening decision as one based on both reasoning and feeling/intuition, and that is made freely. However, many CRC screening non-participants experienced a certain social pressure to participate. All CRC screening non-participants viewed making an informed decision as essential. This appeared to be the case to a lesser extent for CRC screening participants. For most, experiences and values were involved in their decision-making.
conclusionOur sample of the eligible CRC screening population viewed aspects related to the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making as important for making a 'good' CRC screening decision. However, in particular the existence of a social norm may be affecting a true autonomous decision-making process. Additionally, the present concept of informed decision-making with its strong emphasis on making a fully informed and well-considered decision does not appear to be entirely reflective of the process in practice. More efforts could be made to attune to the diverse values and factors that are involved in deciding about CRC screening participation.
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.