» Articles » PMID: 36510247

Investigating Informed Choice in Screening Programmes: a Mixed Methods Analysis

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Public Health
Date 2022 Dec 12
PMID 36510247
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Impact of Online Interactive Decision Tools on Women's Decision-Making Regarding Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Villain P, Downham L, Le Bonniec A, Bauquier C, Mandrik O, Nadarzynski T J Med Internet Res. 2025; 27:e65974.

PMID: 39879616 PMC: 11822326. DOI: 10.2196/65974.


The use of text messages as an alternative invitation method for breast cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial (M-TICS study).

Vives N, Vidal C, de Guzman E, Farre A, Panera J, Binefa G PLoS One. 2024; 19(8):e0306720.

PMID: 39208325 PMC: 11361687. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306720.


Would shared decision-making be useful in breast cancer screening programmes? A qualitative study using focus group discussions to gather evidence from French women with different socioeconomic backgrounds.

Guigon L, Sanchez L, Petit A, Le Bonniec A, Basu P, Rodrigue C BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):404.

PMID: 38326802 PMC: 10851553. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-17876-5.

References
1.
Gultzow T, Hoving C, Smit E, Bekker H . Integrating behaviour change interventions and patient decision aids: How to accomplish synergistic effects?. Patient Educ Couns. 2021; 104(12):3104-3108. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2021.04.007. View

2.
Skjoth M, Draborg E, Lamont R, Pedersen C, Hansen H, Ekstrom C . Informed choice about Down syndrome screening - effect of an eHealth tool: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015; 94(12):1327-36. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12758. View

3.
Gale N, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S . Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13:117. PMC: 3848812. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-117. View

4.
Ahmadian M, Abu Samah A . Application of health behavior theories to breast cancer screening among Asian women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013; 14(7):4005-13. DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2013.14.7.4005. View

5.
Raffle A . Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice?. Health Expect. 2001; 4(2):92-8. PMC: 5060056. DOI: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00138.x. View