How should we measure informed choice? The case of cancer screening
- PMID: 15800356
- PMCID: PMC1734132
- DOI: 10.1136/jme.2003.005793
How should we measure informed choice? The case of cancer screening
Abstract
Informed choice is increasingly recognised as important in supporting patient autonomy and ensuring that people are neither deceived nor coerced. In cancer screening the emphasis has shifted away from just promoting the benefits of screening to providing comprehensive information to enable people to make an informed choice. Cancer screening programmes in the UK now have policies in place which state that it is their responsibility to ensure that individuals are making an individual informed choice. There is a need to evaluate whether such policies mean that those people invited for screening are making informed choices, and how comprehensive information affects other variables such as uptake, cost effectiveness, and satisfaction. At the present time, there is no validated measure of informed choice in cancer screening. Such a measure could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to increase informed choice and levels of informed choice in a population invited for screening. It could encourage health professionals to be accountable. Factors important when measuring informed choice in cancer screening include an individual's understanding of the limitations of screening, the ability to make an autonomous choice, and the difference between choice and behaviour.
Similar articles
-
[The origin of informed consent].Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005 Oct;25(5):312-27. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005. PMID: 16602332 Italian.
-
Do pregnant women in Greece make informed choices about antenatal screening for Down's syndrome? A questionnaire survey.Midwifery. 2008 Jun;24(2):153-62. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2006.09.001. Epub 2007 Feb 20. Midwifery. 2008. PMID: 17316936
-
Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening?Cancer. 2004 Sep 1;101(5 Suppl):1214-28. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20512. Cancer. 2004. PMID: 15316908 Review.
-
Informed choice in women attending private clinics to undergo first-trimester screening for Down syndrome.Prenat Diagn. 2005 Aug;25(8):656-64. doi: 10.1002/pd.1218. Prenat Diagn. 2005. PMID: 16049990
-
Challenging the rhetoric of choice in prenatal screening.Bioethics. 2009 Jan;23(1):68-77. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00674.x. Bioethics. 2009. PMID: 19076943 Review.
Cited by
-
Eliciting women's cervical screening preferences: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 11;5(1):136. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0310-9. Syst Rev. 2016. PMID: 27516072 Free PMC article.
-
The impact of personalised risk information compared to a positive/negative result on informed choice and intention to undergo colonoscopy following colorectal Cancer screening in Scotland (PERICCS) - a randomised controlled trial: study protocol.BMC Public Health. 2019 Apr 16;19(1):411. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6734-0. BMC Public Health. 2019. PMID: 30991987 Free PMC article.
-
"They Should Be Asking Us": A Qualitative Decisional Needs Assessment for Women Considering Cervical Cancer Screening.Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2018 Jul 2;5:2333393618783632. doi: 10.1177/2333393618783632. eCollection 2018 Jan-Dec. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2018. PMID: 30014003 Free PMC article.
-
The role of communication in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study with Australian experts.BMC Cancer. 2015 Oct 19;15:741. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1749-0. BMC Cancer. 2015. PMID: 26480942 Free PMC article.
-
Client and practitioner perspectives on the screening mammography experience.Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017 May;26(3):e12580. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12580. Epub 2016 Oct 13. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017. PMID: 27739138 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources