Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36510247›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Investigating informed choice in screening programmes: a mixed methods analysis.

Natalie Tyldesley-Marshall, Amy Grove, Iman Ghosh, Laura Kudrna, Abimbola Ayorinde, Megha Singh, Edward Mehaan, Aileen Clarke, Sian Taylor-Phillips, Lena Al-Khudairy

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

10 authors.

Natalie Tyldesley-MarshallApplied Research Collaboration West Midlands, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, CV4 7AL, Coventry, UK.
Amy GroveApplied Research Collaboration West Midlands, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, CV4 7AL, Coventry, UK. a.l.grove@warwick.ac.uk.
Iman GhoshApplied Research Collaboration West Midlands, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, CV4 7AL, Coventry, UK.
Laura KudrnaApplied Research Collaboration West Midlands, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, CV4 7AL, Coventry, UK.
Abimbola AyorindeApplied Research Collaboration West Midlands, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, CV4 7AL, Coventry, UK.
Megha SinghApplied Research Collaboration West Midlands, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, CV4 7AL, Coventry, UK.
Edward MehaanMonash University, Wellington Road, VIC, 3800, Clayton, Melbourne, Australia.
Aileen ClarkeApplied Research Collaboration West Midlands, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, CV4 7AL, Coventry, UK.
Sian Taylor-PhillipsApplied Research Collaboration West Midlands, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, CV4 7AL, Coventry, UK.
Lena Al-KhudairyApplied Research Collaboration West Midlands, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, CV4 7AL, Coventry, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research AF 36000National Institute for Health Research NIHR-CDF-2016-09-018National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands NIHR200165
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening programmes aim to identify individuals at higher risk of developing a disease or condition. While globally, there is agreement that people who attend screening should be fully informed, there is no consensus about how this should be achieved. We conducted a mixed methods study across eight different countries to understand how countries address informed choice across two screening programmes: breast cancer and fetal trisomy anomaly screening.

methodsFourteen senior level employees from organisations who produce and deliver decision aids to assist informed choice were interviewed, and their decision aids (n = 15) were evaluated using documentary analysis.

resultsWe discovered that attempts to achieve informed choice via decision aids generate two key tensions (i) between improving informed choice and increasing uptake and (ii) between improving informed choice and comprehensibility of the information presented. Comprehensibility is fundamentally at tension with an aim of being fully informed. These tensions emerged in both the interviews and documentary analysis.

conclusionWe conclude that organisations need to decide whether their overarching aim is ensuring high levels of uptake or maximising informed choice to participate in screening programmes. Consideration must then be given to all levels of development and distribution of information produced to reflect each organisation's aim. The comprehensibility of the DA must also be considered, as this may be reduced when informed choice is prioritised.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDecision MakingFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisCancerDecision aidsDecision-makingFetal anomaliesHealth communicationInformed choiceMixed methodsNon-invasive pregnancy testingPublic policyScreening

Identifiers

PMID36510247
PMCPMC9743591

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.