Cargando…

Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION: It is increasingly considered important that people make an autonomous and informed decision concerning colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, the realisation of autonomy within the concept of informed decision-making might be interpreted too narrowly. Additionally, relatively lit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Douma, Linda N., Uiters, Ellen, Verweij, Marcel F., Timmermans, Danielle R. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7259584/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32469889
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233308
_version_ 1783540160645824512
author Douma, Linda N.
Uiters, Ellen
Verweij, Marcel F.
Timmermans, Danielle R. M.
author_facet Douma, Linda N.
Uiters, Ellen
Verweij, Marcel F.
Timmermans, Danielle R. M.
author_sort Douma, Linda N.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: It is increasingly considered important that people make an autonomous and informed decision concerning colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, the realisation of autonomy within the concept of informed decision-making might be interpreted too narrowly. Additionally, relatively little is known about what the eligible population believes to be a ‘good’ screening decision. Therefore, we aimed to explore how the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making relate to how the eligible CRC screening population makes their decision and when they believe to have made a ‘good’ screening decision. METHODS: We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with the eligible CRC screening population (eighteen CRC screening participants and nine non-participants). The general topics discussed concerned how people made their CRC screening decision, how they experienced making this decision and when they considered they had made a ‘good’ decision. RESULTS: Most interviewees viewed a ‘good’ CRC screening decision as one based on both reasoning and feeling/intuition, and that is made freely. However, many CRC screening non-participants experienced a certain social pressure to participate. All CRC screening non-participants viewed making an informed decision as essential. This appeared to be the case to a lesser extent for CRC screening participants. For most, experiences and values were involved in their decision-making. CONCLUSION: Our sample of the eligible CRC screening population viewed aspects related to the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making as important for making a ‘good’ CRC screening decision. However, in particular the existence of a social norm may be affecting a true autonomous decision-making process. Additionally, the present concept of informed decision-making with its strong emphasis on making a fully informed and well-considered decision does not appear to be entirely reflective of the process in practice. More efforts could be made to attune to the diverse values and factors that are involved in deciding about CRC screening participation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7259584
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72595842020-06-08 Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening Douma, Linda N. Uiters, Ellen Verweij, Marcel F. Timmermans, Danielle R. M. PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: It is increasingly considered important that people make an autonomous and informed decision concerning colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, the realisation of autonomy within the concept of informed decision-making might be interpreted too narrowly. Additionally, relatively little is known about what the eligible population believes to be a ‘good’ screening decision. Therefore, we aimed to explore how the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making relate to how the eligible CRC screening population makes their decision and when they believe to have made a ‘good’ screening decision. METHODS: We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with the eligible CRC screening population (eighteen CRC screening participants and nine non-participants). The general topics discussed concerned how people made their CRC screening decision, how they experienced making this decision and when they considered they had made a ‘good’ decision. RESULTS: Most interviewees viewed a ‘good’ CRC screening decision as one based on both reasoning and feeling/intuition, and that is made freely. However, many CRC screening non-participants experienced a certain social pressure to participate. All CRC screening non-participants viewed making an informed decision as essential. This appeared to be the case to a lesser extent for CRC screening participants. For most, experiences and values were involved in their decision-making. CONCLUSION: Our sample of the eligible CRC screening population viewed aspects related to the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making as important for making a ‘good’ CRC screening decision. However, in particular the existence of a social norm may be affecting a true autonomous decision-making process. Additionally, the present concept of informed decision-making with its strong emphasis on making a fully informed and well-considered decision does not appear to be entirely reflective of the process in practice. More efforts could be made to attune to the diverse values and factors that are involved in deciding about CRC screening participation. Public Library of Science 2020-05-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7259584/ /pubmed/32469889 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233308 Text en © 2020 Douma et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Douma, Linda N.
Uiters, Ellen
Verweij, Marcel F.
Timmermans, Danielle R. M.
Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening
title Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening
title_full Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening
title_fullStr Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening
title_full_unstemmed Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening
title_short Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening
title_sort autonomous and informed decision-making: the case of colorectal cancer screening
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7259584/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32469889
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233308
work_keys_str_mv AT doumalindan autonomousandinformeddecisionmakingthecaseofcolorectalcancerscreening
AT uitersellen autonomousandinformeddecisionmakingthecaseofcolorectalcancerscreening
AT verweijmarcelf autonomousandinformeddecisionmakingthecaseofcolorectalcancerscreening
AT timmermansdaniellerm autonomousandinformeddecisionmakingthecaseofcolorectalcancerscreening