Cargando…
Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial
Objective To compare the effect of an invitation promoting informed choice for screening with a standard invitation on attendance and motivation to engage in preventive action. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Four English general practices. Participants 1272 people aged 40-69 years, at r...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869404/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20466791 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2138 |
_version_ | 1782181126912081920 |
---|---|
author | Marteau, Theresa M Mann, Eleanor Prevost, A Toby Vasconcelos, Joana C Kellar, Ian Sanderson, Simon Parker, Michael Griffin, Simon Sutton, Stephen Kinmonth, Ann Louise |
author_facet | Marteau, Theresa M Mann, Eleanor Prevost, A Toby Vasconcelos, Joana C Kellar, Ian Sanderson, Simon Parker, Michael Griffin, Simon Sutton, Stephen Kinmonth, Ann Louise |
author_sort | Marteau, Theresa M |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objective To compare the effect of an invitation promoting informed choice for screening with a standard invitation on attendance and motivation to engage in preventive action. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Four English general practices. Participants 1272 people aged 40-69 years, at risk for diabetes, identified from practice registers using a validated risk score and invited to attend for screening. Intervention Intervention was a previously validated invitation to inform the decision to attend screening, presenting diabetes as a serious potential problem, and providing details of possible costs and benefits of screening and treatment in text and pie charts. This was compared with a brief, standard invitation simply describing diabetes as a serious potential problem. Main outcome measures The primary end point was attendance for screening. The secondary outcome measures were intention to make changes to lifestyle and satisfaction with decisions made among attenders. Results The primary end point was analysed for all 1272 participants. 55.8% (353/633) of those in the informed choice group attended for screening, compared with 57.6% (368/639) in the standard invitation group (mean difference −1.8%, 95% confidence interval −7.3% to 3.6%; P=0.51). Attendance was lower among the more deprived group (most deprived third 47.5% v least deprived third 64.3%; P<0.001). Interaction between deprivation and effect of invitation type on attendance was not significant. Among attenders, intention to change behaviour was strong and unaffected by invitation type. Conclusions Providing information to support choice did not adversely affect attendance for screening for diabetes. Those from more socially deprived groups were, however, less likely to attend, regardless of the type of invitation received. Further attention to invitation content alone is unlikely to achieve equity in uptake of preventive services. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 73125647. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2869404 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-28694042010-05-18 Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial Marteau, Theresa M Mann, Eleanor Prevost, A Toby Vasconcelos, Joana C Kellar, Ian Sanderson, Simon Parker, Michael Griffin, Simon Sutton, Stephen Kinmonth, Ann Louise BMJ Research Objective To compare the effect of an invitation promoting informed choice for screening with a standard invitation on attendance and motivation to engage in preventive action. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Four English general practices. Participants 1272 people aged 40-69 years, at risk for diabetes, identified from practice registers using a validated risk score and invited to attend for screening. Intervention Intervention was a previously validated invitation to inform the decision to attend screening, presenting diabetes as a serious potential problem, and providing details of possible costs and benefits of screening and treatment in text and pie charts. This was compared with a brief, standard invitation simply describing diabetes as a serious potential problem. Main outcome measures The primary end point was attendance for screening. The secondary outcome measures were intention to make changes to lifestyle and satisfaction with decisions made among attenders. Results The primary end point was analysed for all 1272 participants. 55.8% (353/633) of those in the informed choice group attended for screening, compared with 57.6% (368/639) in the standard invitation group (mean difference −1.8%, 95% confidence interval −7.3% to 3.6%; P=0.51). Attendance was lower among the more deprived group (most deprived third 47.5% v least deprived third 64.3%; P<0.001). Interaction between deprivation and effect of invitation type on attendance was not significant. Among attenders, intention to change behaviour was strong and unaffected by invitation type. Conclusions Providing information to support choice did not adversely affect attendance for screening for diabetes. Those from more socially deprived groups were, however, less likely to attend, regardless of the type of invitation received. Further attention to invitation content alone is unlikely to achieve equity in uptake of preventive services. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 73125647. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2010-05-13 /pmc/articles/PMC2869404/ /pubmed/20466791 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2138 Text en © Marteau et al 2010 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode. |
spellingShingle | Research Marteau, Theresa M Mann, Eleanor Prevost, A Toby Vasconcelos, Joana C Kellar, Ian Sanderson, Simon Parker, Michael Griffin, Simon Sutton, Stephen Kinmonth, Ann Louise Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial |
title | Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial |
title_full | Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial |
title_fullStr | Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial |
title_short | Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial |
title_sort | impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (dicision): randomised trial |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869404/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20466791 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2138 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT marteautheresam impactofaninformedchoiceinvitationonuptakeofscreeningfordiabetesinprimarycaredicisionrandomisedtrial AT manneleanor impactofaninformedchoiceinvitationonuptakeofscreeningfordiabetesinprimarycaredicisionrandomisedtrial AT prevostatoby impactofaninformedchoiceinvitationonuptakeofscreeningfordiabetesinprimarycaredicisionrandomisedtrial AT vasconcelosjoanac impactofaninformedchoiceinvitationonuptakeofscreeningfordiabetesinprimarycaredicisionrandomisedtrial AT kellarian impactofaninformedchoiceinvitationonuptakeofscreeningfordiabetesinprimarycaredicisionrandomisedtrial AT sandersonsimon impactofaninformedchoiceinvitationonuptakeofscreeningfordiabetesinprimarycaredicisionrandomisedtrial AT parkermichael impactofaninformedchoiceinvitationonuptakeofscreeningfordiabetesinprimarycaredicisionrandomisedtrial AT griffinsimon impactofaninformedchoiceinvitationonuptakeofscreeningfordiabetesinprimarycaredicisionrandomisedtrial AT suttonstephen impactofaninformedchoiceinvitationonuptakeofscreeningfordiabetesinprimarycaredicisionrandomisedtrial AT kinmonthannlouise impactofaninformedchoiceinvitationonuptakeofscreeningfordiabetesinprimarycaredicisionrandomisedtrial |