Cargando…
Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study
BACKGROUND: Despite concerns that facilitating informed choice would decrease diabetes screening uptake, 'informed choice' invitations that increased knowledge did not affect attendance (the DICISION trial). We explored possible reasons using data from an experimental analogue study undert...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3019193/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21167033 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-768 |
_version_ | 1782196182756360192 |
---|---|
author | Mann, Eleanor Kellar, Ian Sutton, Stephen Kinmonth, Ann Louise Hankins, Matthew Griffin, Simon Marteau, Theresa M |
author_facet | Mann, Eleanor Kellar, Ian Sutton, Stephen Kinmonth, Ann Louise Hankins, Matthew Griffin, Simon Marteau, Theresa M |
author_sort | Mann, Eleanor |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Despite concerns that facilitating informed choice would decrease diabetes screening uptake, 'informed choice' invitations that increased knowledge did not affect attendance (the DICISION trial). We explored possible reasons using data from an experimental analogue study undertaken to develop the invitations. We tested a model of the impact on knowledge, attitude and intentions of a diabetes screening invitation designed to facilitate informed choices. METHODS: 417 men and women aged 40-69 recruited from town centres in the UK were randomised to receive either an invitation for diabetes screening designed to facilitate informed choice or a standard type of invitation. Knowledge of the invitation, attitude towards diabetes screening, and intention to attend for diabetes screening were assessed two weeks later. RESULTS: Attitude was a strong predictor of screening intentions (β = .64, p = .001). Knowledge added to the model but was a weak predictor of intentions (β = .13, p = .005). However, invitation type did not predict attitudes towards screening but did predict knowledge (β = -.45, p = .001), which mediated a small effect of invitation type on intention (indirect β = -.06, p = .017). CONCLUSIONS: These findings may explain why information about the benefits and harms of screening did not reduce diabetes screening attendance in the DICISION trial. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-3019193 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-30191932011-01-12 Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study Mann, Eleanor Kellar, Ian Sutton, Stephen Kinmonth, Ann Louise Hankins, Matthew Griffin, Simon Marteau, Theresa M BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Despite concerns that facilitating informed choice would decrease diabetes screening uptake, 'informed choice' invitations that increased knowledge did not affect attendance (the DICISION trial). We explored possible reasons using data from an experimental analogue study undertaken to develop the invitations. We tested a model of the impact on knowledge, attitude and intentions of a diabetes screening invitation designed to facilitate informed choices. METHODS: 417 men and women aged 40-69 recruited from town centres in the UK were randomised to receive either an invitation for diabetes screening designed to facilitate informed choice or a standard type of invitation. Knowledge of the invitation, attitude towards diabetes screening, and intention to attend for diabetes screening were assessed two weeks later. RESULTS: Attitude was a strong predictor of screening intentions (β = .64, p = .001). Knowledge added to the model but was a weak predictor of intentions (β = .13, p = .005). However, invitation type did not predict attitudes towards screening but did predict knowledge (β = -.45, p = .001), which mediated a small effect of invitation type on intention (indirect β = -.06, p = .017). CONCLUSIONS: These findings may explain why information about the benefits and harms of screening did not reduce diabetes screening attendance in the DICISION trial. BioMed Central 2010-12-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3019193/ /pubmed/21167033 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-768 Text en Copyright ©2010 Mann et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (<url>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0</url>), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Mann, Eleanor Kellar, Ian Sutton, Stephen Kinmonth, Ann Louise Hankins, Matthew Griffin, Simon Marteau, Theresa M Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study |
title | Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study |
title_full | Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study |
title_fullStr | Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study |
title_full_unstemmed | Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study |
title_short | Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study |
title_sort | impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3019193/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21167033 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-768 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT manneleanor impactofinformedchoiceinvitationsondiabetesscreeningknowledgeattitudeandintentionsananaloguestudy AT kellarian impactofinformedchoiceinvitationsondiabetesscreeningknowledgeattitudeandintentionsananaloguestudy AT suttonstephen impactofinformedchoiceinvitationsondiabetesscreeningknowledgeattitudeandintentionsananaloguestudy AT kinmonthannlouise impactofinformedchoiceinvitationsondiabetesscreeningknowledgeattitudeandintentionsananaloguestudy AT hankinsmatthew impactofinformedchoiceinvitationsondiabetesscreeningknowledgeattitudeandintentionsananaloguestudy AT griffinsimon impactofinformedchoiceinvitationsondiabetesscreeningknowledgeattitudeandintentionsananaloguestudy AT marteautheresam impactofinformedchoiceinvitationsondiabetesscreeningknowledgeattitudeandintentionsananaloguestudy |