Can informed choice invitations lead to inequities in intentions to make lifestyle changes among participants in a primary care diabetes screening programme? Evidence from a randomized trial

Public Health

Volumn 125, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 645-652

  Kellar, I ^a   Mann, E ^a   Kinmonth, A L ^a   Prevost, A T ^a   Sutton, S ^a   Marteau, T M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Behaviour change; Informed choice; Screening

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; DIABETES; HEALTH RISK; LIFESTYLE; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; RISK ASSESSMENT; TESTING METHOD;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR CHANGE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; LIFESTYLE MODIFICATION; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PREDICTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SCREENING TEST; SELF CARE; SOCIAL STATUS;

ADULT; AGED; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HUMANS; LIFE STYLE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; REGISTRIES; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 80052511792     PISSN: 00333506     EISSN: 14765616     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2011.05.010     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Wareham N.J., Griffin S.J. Should we screen for type 2 diabetes? Evaluation against National Screening Committee criteria. BMJ 2001, 322:986-988.
2. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group UK Prospective Diabetes Study 6. Complications in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients and their association with different clinical and biochemical risk factors. Diabetes Res 1990, 13:1-11.
3. Adriaanse M.C., Snoek F.J. The psychological impact of screening for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2006, 22:20-25.
4. Eborall H.C., Griffin S.J., Prevost A.T., Kinmonth A.L., French D.P., Sutton S. Psychological impact of screening for type 2 diabetes: controlled trial and comparative study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2007, 335:486.
5. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 1998, 317:703-713.
6. Echouffo-Tcheugui J.B., Sargeant L.A., Prevost A.T., Williams K.M., Barling R.S., Butler R., et al. How much might cardiovascular disease risk be reduced by intensive therapy in people with screen-detected diabetes?. Diabet Med 2008, 25:1433-1439.
7. Department of Health Choosing health: making healthy choices easier 2004, Crown, London.
8. Dormandy E., Michie S., Hooper R., Marteau T.M. Low uptake of prenatal screening for Down syndrome in minority ethnic groups and socially deprived groups: a reflection of women's attitudes or a failure to facilitate informed choices?. Int J Epidemiol 2005, 34:346-352.
9. Marteau T.M., Kinmonth A.L. Screening for cardiovascular risk: public health imperative or matter for individual informed choice?. BMJ 2002, 325:78-80.
10. O'Connor A.M., Bennett C.L., Stacey D., Barry M., Col N.F., Eden K.B., et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, 3:CD001431.
11. Bekker H.L. Decision aids and uptake of screening. BMJ 2010, 341:c5407.
12. Barr D.A., Fenton L., Blane D. The claim for patient choice and equity. J Med Ethics 2008, 34:271-274.
13. Fox R. Informed choice in screening programmes: do leaflets help? a critical literature review. J Public Health (Oxf) 2006, 28:309-317.
14. Jepson R.G., Forbes C.A., Sowden A.J., Lewis R.A. Increasing informed uptake and non-uptake of screening: evidence from a systematic review. Health Expect 2001, 4:116-126.
15. Cooke R., French D.P. How well do the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour predict intentions and attendance at screening programmes? a meta-analysis. PsycholHealth 2008, 23:745-765.
16. Tudor Hart J. Commentary: three decades of the inverse care law. BMJ 2000, 320:18-19.
17. Raffle A.E. Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice?. Health Expect 2001, 4:92-98.
18. Mann E., Prevost A.T., Griffin S., Kellar I., Sutton S., Parker M., et al. Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): trial Protocol. BMC Public Health 2009.
19. van der Meer J.B., van den Bos J., Mackenbach J.P. Socioeconomic differences in the utilization of health services in a Dutch population: the contribution of health status. Health Policy 1996, 37:1-18.
20. Goddard M., Smith P. Equity of access to health care 1998, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, York.
21. Kelly W.F., Mahmood R., Kelly M.J., Turner S., Elliott K. Influence of social deprivation on illness in diabetic patients. BMJ 1993, 307:1115-1116.
22. Connolly V.M., Kesson C.M. Socioeconomic status and clustering of cardiovascular disease risk factors in diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 1996, 19:419-422.
23. Chaturvedi N., Stephenson J.M., Fuller J.H. The relationship between socioeconomic status and diabetes control and complications in the EURODIAB IDDM Complications Study. Diabetes Care 1996, 19:423-430.
24. Kelly W.F., Mahmood R., Turner S., Elliott K. Geographical mapping of diabetic patients from the deprived inner city shows less insulin therapy and more hyperglycaemia. Diabet Med 1994, 11:344-348.
25. Roper N.A., Bilous R.W., Kelly W.F., Unwin N.C., Connolly V.M. Excess mortality in a population with diabetes and the impact of material deprivation: longitudinal, population based study. BMJ 2001, 322:1389-1393.
26. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organiz Behav Hum Decis Processes 1991, 50:179-211.
27. Webb T.L., Sheeran P. Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? a meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol Bull 2006, 132:249-268.
28. Petrocelli J.V. Factor validation of the consideration of future consequences scale: evidence for a short version. J Soc Psychol 2003, 143:405-413.
29. Strathman S., Gleicher F., Boninger D.S., Edwards C.S. The consideration of future consequences: weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behaviour. J Personality Soc Psychol 1994, 66:742-752.
30. Rothspan S., Read S.J. Present versus future time perspective and HIV risk among heterosexual college students. Health Psychol 1996, 15:131-134.
31. Luszczynska A., Gibbons F.X., Piko B.F., Tekozel M. Self-regulatory cognitions, social comparison, and perceived peers' behaviors as predictors of nutrition and physical activity: a comparison among adolescents in Hungary, Poland, Turkey, and USA. Psychol Health 2004, 19:577-593.
32. Orbell S., Perugini M., Rakow T. Individual differences in sensitivity to health communications: consideration of future consequences. Health Psychol 2004, 23:388-396.
33. Crockett R., Wilkinson T.M., Marteau T.M. Social patterning of screening uptake and the impact of facilitating informed choices: psychological and ethical analyses. Health Care Anal 2008, 16:17-30.
34. Griffin S.J., Little P.S., Hales C.N., Kinmonth A.L., Wareham N.J. Diabetes risk score: towards earlier detection of type 2 diabetes in general practice. Diabet Metab Res Rev 2000, 16:164-171.
35. Mann E., Prevost A.T., Griffin S., Kellar I., Sutton S., Parker M., et al. Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): trial protocol. BMC Public Health 2009, 9:63.
36. Muir J., Mant D., Jones L., Yudkin D. Effectiveness of health checks conducted by nurses in primary care: results of the OXCHECK study after one year. Imperial Cancer Research Fund OXCHECK Study Group. BMJ 1994, 308:308-312.
37. Wood D.A., Kinmonth A.L., Davies G.A., Yarwood J., Thompson S.D., Pyke S.D.M., et al. Randomised controlled trial evaluating cardiovascular screening and intervention in general practice: principal results of British family heart study. BMJ 1994, 308:313-320.
38. Kellar I., Sutton S., Griffin S., Prevost A.T., Kinmonth A.L., Marteau T.M. Evaluation of an informed choice invitation for type 2 diabetes screening. Patient Educ Counsel 2008, 72:232-238.
39. General Medical Council Seeking patients' consent: the ethical considerations 1998, GMC, London.
40. Wankel L.M., Yardley J.K., Graham J. The effects of motivational interventions upon the exercise adherence of high and low self-motivated adults. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1985, 10:147-155.
41. Sutton S., Gilbert H. Effectiveness of individually tailored smoking cessation advice letters as an adjunct to telephone counselling and generic self-help materials: randomized controlled trial. Addiction 2007, 102:994-1000.
42. Cockburn J., Redman S., Hill D., Henry E. Public understanding of medical screening. J Med Screen 1995, 2:224.
43. Dormandy E., Michie S., Hooper R., Marteau T. Informed choice in antenatal Down syndrome screening: a cluster-randomised trial of combined versus separate visit testing. Patient Educ Counsel 2006, 61:56-64.
44. Marteau T.M., Mann E., Prevost A.T., Vasconcelos J., Kellar I., Sanderson S., et al. Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): a randomised trial. BMJ 2010, 340:c2138.
45. Tudor Hart J. The inverse care law. Lancet 1971, 1:405-412.
46. Eakin E.G., Bull S.S., Glasgow R.E., Mason M. Reaching those most in need: a review of diabetes self-management interventions in disadvantaged populations. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2002, 18:26-35.
47. Ashford S., Edmunds J., French D.P. What is the best way to change self-efficacy to promote lifestyle and recreational physical activity? a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Health Psychol 2010, 15:265-288.
48. Harris R.J., Longley P.A. Creating small area measures of urban deprivation. Environ Plann A 2002, 34:1073-1093.
49. Hall P., Pfeiffer U. Urban future 21: a global agenda for twenty-first century cities 2000, Spon, London.
50. Ford E.S., Merritt R.K., Heath G.W., Powell K.E., Washburn R.A., Kriska A., et al. Physical activity behaviors in lower and higher socioeconomic status populations. Am J Epidemiol 1991, 133:1246-1256.
51. Reisig V., Reitmeir P., Doring A., Rathmann W., Mielck A. Social inequalities and outcomes in type 2 diabetes in the German region of Augsburg. A cross-sectional survey. Int J Public Health 2007, 52:158-165.
52. Sowden S.L., Breeze E., Barber J., Raine R. Do general practices provide equitable access to physical activity interventions?. Br J Gen Pract 2008, 58:e1-8.
53. Longley P.A., Harris R.J. Towards a new digital data infrastructure for urban analysis and modelling. Environ Plann B Plann Design 1999, 26:855-878.
54. Orbell S., Hagger M. Temporal framing and the decision to take part in type 2 diabetes screening: effects of individual differences in consideration of future consequences on persuasion. Health Psychol 2006, 25:537-548.
55. Zimbardo P.G., Keough K.A., Boyd J.N. Present time perspective as a predictor of risky driving. Personality Indiv Differ 1997, 23:1007-1023.
56. Brown W.T., Jones J.M. The substance of things hoped for: a study of the future orientation, minority status perceptions, academic engagement, and academic performance of black high school students. J Black Psychol 2004, 30:248-273.
57. D'Alessio M., Guarino A., De Pascalis V., Zimbardo P.G. Testing Zimbardo's Stanford time perspective Inventory (STPI) -Short form: an Italian study. Time Soc 2003, 333-347.
58. Armitage C.J., Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol 2001, 40:471-500.
59. Godin G., Kok G. The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications to health-related behaviors. Am J Health Promot 1996, 11:87-98.