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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2010 Dec 17:10:768.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-768.

Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study

Eleanor Mann  1 , Ian Kellar, Stephen Sutton, Ann Louise Kinmonth, Matthew Hankins, Simon Griffin, Theresa M Marteau
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study

Eleanor Mann et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Despite concerns that facilitating informed choice would decrease diabetes screening uptake, 'informed choice' invitations that increased knowledge did not affect attendance (the DICISION trial). We explored possible reasons using data from an experimental analogue study undertaken to develop the invitations. We tested a model of the impact on knowledge, attitude and intentions of a diabetes screening invitation designed to facilitate informed choices.

Methods: 417 men and women aged 40-69 recruited from town centres in the UK were randomised to receive either an invitation for diabetes screening designed to facilitate informed choice or a standard type of invitation. Knowledge of the invitation, attitude towards diabetes screening, and intention to attend for diabetes screening were assessed two weeks later.

Results: Attitude was a strong predictor of screening intentions (β = .64, p = .001). Knowledge added to the model but was a weak predictor of intentions (β = .13, p = .005). However, invitation type did not predict attitudes towards screening but did predict knowledge (β = -.45, p = .001), which mediated a small effect of invitation type on intention (indirect β = -.06, p = .017).

Conclusions: These findings may explain why information about the benefits and harms of screening did not reduce diabetes screening attendance in the DICISION trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Model of the impact of the informed choice invitation on screening intentions 2 weeks later (n = 407). Notes: *** p = .001, ** p = .005. Model fit: χ2(2) = 1.35, p = .51; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .00, SMSR = .02. 90% confidence intervals for standardised regression weights shown in brackets Negative β weights between invitation and knowledge indicate that the informed choice invitation was associated with higher knowledge. Indirect effect of invitation on intention = -.06 (90%CI: -.10 to -.02), p = .017. Indirect effects of invitation on attitude = .003 (90%CI: -.04 to .03), p = .853
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Raffle A, Gray J. Screening: Evidence and Practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2007.
    1. General Medical Council. Seeking Patients' Consent: The Ethical Considerations. London: GMC; 1998.
    1. National Screening Committee. 2nd Report of the UK National Screening Committee. London, UK: The Stationary Office; 2000. --- Either first page or author must be supplied.
    1. Department for Health. Health Act 2009. London, UK: The Stationary Office; 2009. --- Either first page or author must be supplied.
    1. Bekker H, Thornton JG, Airey CM, Connelly JB, Hewison J, Robinson MB, Lilleyman J, MacIntosh M, Maule AJ, Michie S. Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technology Assessment. 1999;3(1):1–156. - PubMed

Publication types