Informed choice in bowel cancer screening: a qualitative study to explore how adults with lower education use decision aids
Informed choice in bowel cancer screening: a qualitative study to explore how adults with lower education use decision aids
Background: Offering informed choice in screening is increasingly advocated, but little is known about how evidence-based information about the benefits and harms of screening influences understanding and participation in screening.
Objective:?We aimed to explore how a bowel cancer screening decision aid influenced decision making and screening behaviour among adults with lower education and literacy.
Methods: Twenty-one men and women aged 55-64 years with lower education levels were interviewed about using a decision aid to make their screening decision. Participants were purposively selected to include those who had and had not made an informed choice.
Results: Understanding the purpose of the decision aid was an important factor in whether participants made an informed choice about screening. Participants varied in how they understood and integrated quantitative risk information about the benefits and harms of screening into their decision making; some read it carefully and used it to justify their screening decision, whereas others dismissed it because they were sceptical of it or lacked confidence in their own numeracy ability. Participants' prior knowledge and beliefs about screening influenced how they made sense of the information.
Discussion and conclusions:?Participants valued information that offered them a choice in a non-directive way, but were concerned that it would deter people from screening. Healthcare providers need to be aware that people respond to screening information in diverse ways involving a range of literacy skills and cognitive processes.
Smith, Sian K.
ee5f6382-fa72-445a-8688-356b2d47d681
Kearney, Paul
82d4c4dd-05cb-4c16-9d2d-bf8550596343
Trevena, Lyndal
0eeb2f6f-e14f-4a33-aa2b-ac7922562217
Barratt, Alexandra
d2bb9788-bd83-4971-870d-c651fb660e6e
Nutbeam, Don
352dc808-9160-42e7-8b52-b8cac02ad486
McCaffery, Kirsten J.
54bdb06e-053d-4fad-8c69-0e235a9bfd04
19 April 2012
Smith, Sian K.
ee5f6382-fa72-445a-8688-356b2d47d681
Kearney, Paul
82d4c4dd-05cb-4c16-9d2d-bf8550596343
Trevena, Lyndal
0eeb2f6f-e14f-4a33-aa2b-ac7922562217
Barratt, Alexandra
d2bb9788-bd83-4971-870d-c651fb660e6e
Nutbeam, Don
352dc808-9160-42e7-8b52-b8cac02ad486
McCaffery, Kirsten J.
54bdb06e-053d-4fad-8c69-0e235a9bfd04
Smith, Sian K., Kearney, Paul, Trevena, Lyndal, Barratt, Alexandra, Nutbeam, Don and McCaffery, Kirsten J.
(2012)
Informed choice in bowel cancer screening: a qualitative study to explore how adults with lower education use decision aids.
Health Expectations.
(doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00780.x).
(PMID:22512746)
Abstract
Background: Offering informed choice in screening is increasingly advocated, but little is known about how evidence-based information about the benefits and harms of screening influences understanding and participation in screening.
Objective:?We aimed to explore how a bowel cancer screening decision aid influenced decision making and screening behaviour among adults with lower education and literacy.
Methods: Twenty-one men and women aged 55-64 years with lower education levels were interviewed about using a decision aid to make their screening decision. Participants were purposively selected to include those who had and had not made an informed choice.
Results: Understanding the purpose of the decision aid was an important factor in whether participants made an informed choice about screening. Participants varied in how they understood and integrated quantitative risk information about the benefits and harms of screening into their decision making; some read it carefully and used it to justify their screening decision, whereas others dismissed it because they were sceptical of it or lacked confidence in their own numeracy ability. Participants' prior knowledge and beliefs about screening influenced how they made sense of the information.
Discussion and conclusions:?Participants valued information that offered them a choice in a non-directive way, but were concerned that it would deter people from screening. Healthcare providers need to be aware that people respond to screening information in diverse ways involving a range of literacy skills and cognitive processes.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 19 April 2012
Organisations:
Faculty of Social, Human and Mathematical Sciences
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 359814
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/359814
ISSN: 1369-6513
PURE UUID: a3b2fbe1-62fc-4b45-a745-8dd08f84db83
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 13 Nov 2013 14:23
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 15:29
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Sian K. Smith
Author:
Paul Kearney
Author:
Lyndal Trevena
Author:
Alexandra Barratt
Author:
Don Nutbeam
Author:
Kirsten J. McCaffery
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics