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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tyldesley-Marshall, Natalie, Grove, Amy, Ghosh, Iman, Kudrna, Laura, Ayorinde, Abimbola, Singh, Megha, Mehaan, Edward, Clarke, Aileen, Taylor-Phillips, Sian, Al-Khudairy, Lena
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