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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mann, Eleanor, Kellar, Ian, Sutton, Stephen, Kinmonth, Ann Louise, Hankins, Matthew, Griffin, Simon, Marteau, Theresa M
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