Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38445047›Full record

ArticleMDM policy & practice

Understanding the Impact of Different Modes of Information Provision on Preferences for a Newborn Bloodspot Screening Program in the United Kingdom.

Stuart J Wright, Caroline M Vass, Fiona Ulph, Katherine Payne

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in MDM policy & practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

4 authors.

Stuart J WrightManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Service Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4064-7998
Caroline M VassManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Service Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6385-2812
Fiona UlphDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Katherine PayneManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Service Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Highlights: Prior to completing a discrete choice experiment about newborn bloodspot screening, respondents were shown information using either a leaflet-based or animated format.Respondents receiving information using an animation version reported that the information was slightly easier to understand and exhibited 9% less error variance in expressing their preferences for a newborn screening program.Using the animation version to present information appeared to have a larger impact in reducing the error variance of responses for specific respondents including women, individuals with children, individuals between the ages of 35 and 45 y, and individuals educated to degree level.

Indexed as

discrete choice experimentinformation provisionnewborn bloodspot (or blood spot) screeningpatient choice

Identifiers

PMID38445047
PMCPMC10913504

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.