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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Marteau, Theresa M, Mann, Eleanor, Prevost, A Toby, Vasconcelos, Joana C, Kellar, Ian, Sanderson, Simon, Parker, Michael, Griffin, Simon, Sutton, Stephen, Kinmonth, Ann Louise
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