A theoretical framework for measuring knowledge in screening decision aid trials

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 89, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 330-336

  Smith, Sian K ^a   Barratt, Alexandra ^b   Trevena, Lyndal ^b   Simpson, Judy M ^b   Jansen, Jesse ^b   McCaffery, Kirsten J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bowel cancer screening; Faecal occult blood test; Fuzzy Trace Theory; Informed choice; Informed decision making; Knowledge; Measure

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; EDUCATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FUZZY TRACE THEORY; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INTESTINE CANCER; KNOWLEDGE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; OCCULT BLOOD; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); THEORY;

ADULT; AUSTRALIA; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FECES; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; FUZZY LOGIC; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; INTESTINAL NEOPLASMS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; OCCULT BLOOD; PAMPHLETS; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT PARTICIPATION;

EID: 84868197321     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: 18735134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.07.009     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. O'Connor A.M., Bennett C.L., Stacey D., Barry M., Col Nananda F., Eden K.B., et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, 3. [CD001431].
2. O'Connor A., Bennett C., Stacey D., Barry M., Col N., Eden K., et al. Do patient decision aids meet effectiveness criteria of the international patient decision aid standards collaboration? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decis Making 2007, 27:554-574.
3. Durand M.-A., Stiel M., Boivin J., Elwyn G. Where is the theory? Evaluating the theoretical frameworks described in decision support technologies. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 71:125-135.
4. Elwyn G., Stiel M., Durand M.A., Boivin J. The design of patient decision support interventions: addressing the theory - practice gap. J Eval Clin Pract 2010, 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01517.x.
5. Bekker H., Thornton J., Airey C., Connelly J., Hewison J., Robinson M., et al. Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1999, 3:1-156.
6. Bowen D., Allen J., Vu T., Johnson R., Fryer-Edwards K., Hart A. Theoretical foundations for interventions designed to promote informed decision making for cancer screening. Ann Behav Med 2006, 32:202-210.
7. O'Connor A.M., Stacey D., Barry M.J., Col N.F., Eden K.B., Entwistle V., et al. Do patient decision aids meet effectiveness criteria of the international patient decision aid standards collaboration? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decis Making 2007, 27:554-574.
8. Sepucha K., Ozanne E., Silvia K., Partridge A., Mulley A. An approach to measuring the quality of breast cancer decisions. Patient Educ Couns 2007, 65:261-269.
9. Sepucha K., Levin C.A., Uzogara E.E., Barry M.J., O'Connor A.M., Mulley A.G. Developing instruments to measure the quality of decisions: early results for a set of symptom-driven decisions. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 73:504-510.
10. Michie S., Dormandy E., Marteau T.M. Informed choice: understanding knowledge in the context of screening uptake. Patient Educ Couns 2003, 50:247-253.
11. Marteau T.M., Dormandy E., Michie S. A measure of informed choice. Health Exps 2001, 4:99-108.
12. Michie S., Dormandy E., Marteau T.M. The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study. Patient Educ Couns 2002, 48:87-91.
13. Dormandy E., Hooper R., Michie S., Marteau T.M. Informed choice to undergo prenatal screening: a comparison of two hospitals conducting testing either as part of a routine visit or requiring a separate visit. J Med Screen 2002, 9:109-114.
14. Dormandy E., Michie S., Hooper R., Marteau T.M. Informed choice in antenatal Down syndrome screening: a cluster-randomised trial of combined versus separate visit testing. Patient Educ Couns 2006, 61:56-64.
15. GMC. Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together. London: General Medical Council,; 2008 [accessed 15.02.09]. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/consent_guidance/index.asp.
16. Schwartz L.M., Woloshin S., Black W.C., Welch H.G. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 1997, 127:966-972.
17. Trevena L., Irwig L., Barratt A. Randomized trial of a self-administered decision aid for ectal cancer screening. J Med Screen 2008, 15:76-82.
18. Mathieu E., Barratt A., Davey H., McGeechan K., Howard K., Houssami N. Informed choice in mammography screening: a randomized trial of a decision aid for 70-year-old women. Arch Intern Med 2007, 167:2039-2046.
19. Reyna V.F., Brainerd C.J. Fuzzy-trace theory: an interim synthesis. Learn Individ Differ 1995, 7:1-75.
20. Reyna V.F., Brainerd C.J. Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: gist extraction, truncation, and conversion 1991, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., p. 249-62.
21. Reyna V.F. A theory of medical decision making and health: Fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making 2008, 28:850-865.
22. Reyna V.F., Nelson W.L., Han P.K., Dieckmann N.F. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Pol Psychol Bull 2009, 135:943-973.
23. Holmboe E.S., Sherbino J., Long D.M., Swing S.R., Frank J.R. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach 2010, 32:676-682.
24. Marteau T., Dormandy E., Michie S. A measure of informed choice. Health Exps 2001, 4:99-108.
25. Woloshin K.K., Ruffin M.T., Gorenflo D.W. Patients' interpretation of qualitative probability statements. Arch Fam Med 1994, 3:961-966.
26. Burkell J. What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials. J Med Libr Assoc 2004, 92:200-208.
27. Akl E.A., Oxman A.D., Herrin J., Vist G.E., Terrenato I., Sperati E.A. Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011, 3. [CD006776].
28. Schuwirth L., Van der Vleutin C., Donkers H. A closer look at cueing effects in multiple choice questions. Med Educ 1996, 30:44-49.
29. Smith S., Trevena L., Barrat A., Dixon A., Nutbeam D., Simpson J., et al. Development and preliminary evaluation of a bowel cancer screening decision aid for adults with lower literacy. Patient Educ Couns 2009, 75:358-367.
30. Smith S.K., Trevena L., Nutbeam D., Barratt A., McCaffery K.J. Information needs and preferences of low and high literacy consumers for decisions about colorectal cancer screening: utilizing a linguistic model. Health Expect 2008, 11:123-136.
31. Smith S.K., Trevena L., Simpson J.M., Barratt A., Nutbeam D., McCaffery K.J. A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial. Brit Med J 2010, 341:c5370.
32. Guyatt G.H., Deyo R.A., Charlson M., Levine M.N., Mitchell A. Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification. J Clin Epidemiol 1989, 42:403-408.
33. Schoonen HMHJD, van Agt H.M.E., Essink-Bot M.L., Wildschut H.I., Steegers E.A.P., de Koning H.J. Informed decision-making in prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: what knowledge is relevant?. Patient Educ Couns 2011, 84:265-270.
34. Waldron C., van der Weijden T., Lubt S., Gallacher J., Elwyn G. What are effective strategies to communicate cardiovascular risk information to patients? A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2010, 82:139-280.