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
. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):703-9.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.703.

Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review

Affiliations

Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review

Adrian Edwards et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effects of different types of individualised risk communication for patients who are deciding whether to participate in screening.

Design: Systematic review.

Data sources: Specialist register of the Cochrane consumers and communication review group, scientific databases, and a manual follow up of references.

Selection of studies: Studies were randomised controlled trials addressing decisions by patients whether or not to undergo screening and incorporating an intervention with an element of "individualised" risk communication-based on the individual's own risk factors for a condition (such as age or family history).

Outcome measures: The principal outcome was uptake of screening tests; further cognitive and affective measures were also assessed to gauge informed decision making.

Results: 13 studies were included, 10 of which addressed mammography programmes. Individualised risk communication was associated with an increased uptake of screening tests (odds ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 2.03). Few cognitive or affective outcomes were reported consistently, so it was not possible to conclude whether this increase in the uptake of tests was related to informed decision making by patients.

Conclusions: Individualised risk estimates may be effective for purposes of population health, but their effects on increasing uptake of screening programmes may not be interpretable as evidence of informed decision making by patients. Greater attention is required to ways of developing interventions for screening programmes that can achieve this.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Uptake of test outcomes from 10 studies addressing decisions by patients on whether or not to undergo screening that were used in the review: random effects meta-analysis

Comment in

References

    1. Raffle A, Alden B, Quinn M, Babb P, Brett M. Outcomes of screening to prevent cancer: analysis of cumulative incidence of cervical abnormality and modelling of cases and deaths prevented. BMJ 2003;326: 901-4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. General Medical Council. Seeking patients consent: the ethical considerations. London: GMC, 1999.
    1. Slaytor E, Ward JE. How risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women: analysis of 58 pamphlets. BMJ 1998;317: 263-4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Edwards A, Hood K, Matthews EJ, Russell D, Russell IT, Barker J, et al. The effectiveness of one-to-one risk communication interventions in health care: a systematic review. Med Dec Making 2000;20: 290-7. - PubMed
    1. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle DK, Green SB, Schairer C, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;81: 1879-86. - PubMed

Publication types