Cargando…
Investigating informed choice in screening programmes: a mixed methods analysis
BACKGROUND: Screening programmes aim to identify individuals at higher risk of developing a disease or condition. While globally, there is agreement that people who attend screening should be fully informed, there is no consensus about how this should be achieved. We conducted a mixed methods study...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9743591/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36510247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14685-6 |
_version_ | 1784848755013451776 |
---|---|
author | Tyldesley-Marshall, Natalie Grove, Amy Ghosh, Iman Kudrna, Laura Ayorinde, Abimbola Singh, Megha Mehaan, Edward Clarke, Aileen Taylor-Phillips, Sian Al-Khudairy, Lena |
author_facet | Tyldesley-Marshall, Natalie Grove, Amy Ghosh, Iman Kudrna, Laura Ayorinde, Abimbola Singh, Megha Mehaan, Edward Clarke, Aileen Taylor-Phillips, Sian Al-Khudairy, Lena |
author_sort | Tyldesley-Marshall, Natalie |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Screening programmes aim to identify individuals at higher risk of developing a disease or condition. While globally, there is agreement that people who attend screening should be fully informed, there is no consensus about how this should be achieved. We conducted a mixed methods study across eight different countries to understand how countries address informed choice across two screening programmes: breast cancer and fetal trisomy anomaly screening. METHODS: Fourteen senior level employees from organisations who produce and deliver decision aids to assist informed choice were interviewed, and their decision aids (n = 15) were evaluated using documentary analysis. RESULTS: We discovered that attempts to achieve informed choice via decision aids generate two key tensions (i) between improving informed choice and increasing uptake and (ii) between improving informed choice and comprehensibility of the information presented. Comprehensibility is fundamentally at tension with an aim of being fully informed. These tensions emerged in both the interviews and documentary analysis. CONCLUSION: We conclude that organisations need to decide whether their overarching aim is ensuring high levels of uptake or maximising informed choice to participate in screening programmes. Consideration must then be given to all levels of development and distribution of information produced to reflect each organisation’s aim. The comprehensibility of the DA must also be considered, as this may be reduced when informed choice is prioritised. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-14685-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9743591 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97435912022-12-13 Investigating informed choice in screening programmes: a mixed methods analysis Tyldesley-Marshall, Natalie Grove, Amy Ghosh, Iman Kudrna, Laura Ayorinde, Abimbola Singh, Megha Mehaan, Edward Clarke, Aileen Taylor-Phillips, Sian Al-Khudairy, Lena BMC Public Health Research BACKGROUND: Screening programmes aim to identify individuals at higher risk of developing a disease or condition. While globally, there is agreement that people who attend screening should be fully informed, there is no consensus about how this should be achieved. We conducted a mixed methods study across eight different countries to understand how countries address informed choice across two screening programmes: breast cancer and fetal trisomy anomaly screening. METHODS: Fourteen senior level employees from organisations who produce and deliver decision aids to assist informed choice were interviewed, and their decision aids (n = 15) were evaluated using documentary analysis. RESULTS: We discovered that attempts to achieve informed choice via decision aids generate two key tensions (i) between improving informed choice and increasing uptake and (ii) between improving informed choice and comprehensibility of the information presented. Comprehensibility is fundamentally at tension with an aim of being fully informed. These tensions emerged in both the interviews and documentary analysis. CONCLUSION: We conclude that organisations need to decide whether their overarching aim is ensuring high levels of uptake or maximising informed choice to participate in screening programmes. Consideration must then be given to all levels of development and distribution of information produced to reflect each organisation’s aim. The comprehensibility of the DA must also be considered, as this may be reduced when informed choice is prioritised. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-14685-6. BioMed Central 2022-12-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9743591/ /pubmed/36510247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14685-6 Text en © Crown 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Tyldesley-Marshall, Natalie Grove, Amy Ghosh, Iman Kudrna, Laura Ayorinde, Abimbola Singh, Megha Mehaan, Edward Clarke, Aileen Taylor-Phillips, Sian Al-Khudairy, Lena Investigating informed choice in screening programmes: a mixed methods analysis |
title | Investigating informed choice in screening programmes: a mixed methods analysis |
title_full | Investigating informed choice in screening programmes: a mixed methods analysis |
title_fullStr | Investigating informed choice in screening programmes: a mixed methods analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Investigating informed choice in screening programmes: a mixed methods analysis |
title_short | Investigating informed choice in screening programmes: a mixed methods analysis |
title_sort | investigating informed choice in screening programmes: a mixed methods analysis |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9743591/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36510247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14685-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tyldesleymarshallnatalie investigatinginformedchoiceinscreeningprogrammesamixedmethodsanalysis AT groveamy investigatinginformedchoiceinscreeningprogrammesamixedmethodsanalysis AT ghoshiman investigatinginformedchoiceinscreeningprogrammesamixedmethodsanalysis AT kudrnalaura investigatinginformedchoiceinscreeningprogrammesamixedmethodsanalysis AT ayorindeabimbola investigatinginformedchoiceinscreeningprogrammesamixedmethodsanalysis AT singhmegha investigatinginformedchoiceinscreeningprogrammesamixedmethodsanalysis AT mehaanedward investigatinginformedchoiceinscreeningprogrammesamixedmethodsanalysis AT clarkeaileen investigatinginformedchoiceinscreeningprogrammesamixedmethodsanalysis AT taylorphillipssian investigatinginformedchoiceinscreeningprogrammesamixedmethodsanalysis AT alkhudairylena investigatinginformedchoiceinscreeningprogrammesamixedmethodsanalysis |