Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2001 Jun;4(2):109-15.
doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00141.x.

The potential contribution of decision aids to screening programmes

Affiliations
Review

The potential contribution of decision aids to screening programmes

V Entwistle. Health Expect. 2001 Jun.

Abstract

Decision aids for health service users facing decisions about screening have been developed for controversial tests (such as that for prostate specific antigen as a screen for prostate cancer) and tests in which outcomes are value laden (as in some prenatal tests). The potential usefulness of decision aids in established screening programmes (such as those offering mammography to women over 50 in the United Kingdom) remains to be explored. In principle any decision about screening test acceptance may be sensitive to individual preferences and could be supported by an appropriate decision aid. Decision aids might also help reduce some of the problems currently associated with public misconceptions about screening. Objections to the promotion of individual choice regarding screening tests usually take the form of concern that this will lead to unacceptable losses in terms of population health gain and health system efficiency, or of fear that individuals will choose options that are wrong for them. The introduction of decision aids could alleviate both of these objections to some extent. Decision aids could encourage people to consider the social as well as the individual consequences of their choices and they should promote choices consistent with personal values. Although there are strong arguments in principle for introducing decision aids into established screening programmes, their potential needs to be confirmed in empirical evaluations and there may be many contentious decisions and practical challenges to be overcome in order to implement them.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kassirer JP. Incorporating patients’ preferences into medical decisions. New England Journal of Medicine, 1994; 330 : 1895–1896. - PubMed
    1. Pauker SG & Kassirer JP. Contentious screening decisions: does the choice matter? New England Journal of Medicine, 1997; 336 : 1243–1244. - PubMed
    1. Barry MJ, Cherkin DC, Chang YC, Fowler FJ, Skates S. A randomized trial of a multimedia shared decision‐making program for men facing a treatment decision for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Disease Management and Clinical Outcomes, 1997; 1 : 5–14.DOI: 10.1016/s1088-3371(96)00004-6 - DOI
    1. Deber R, Kraetschmer N, Trachtenberg J. Shared decision‐making: how does one measure success? (Abstract) Medical Decision-making, 1994; 14 : 429–429.
    1. Street RLJ, Voigt B, Geyer CJ, Manning T, Swanson GP. Increasing patient involvement in choosing treatment for early breast cancer. Cancer, 1995; 76 : 2275–2285. - PubMed

Publication types