Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review.

Adrian Edwards, Silvana Unigwe, Glyn Elwyn, Kerenza Hood
Author Information
  1. Adrian Edwards: Department of Primary Care, University of Wales Swansea Clinical School, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP. a.g.k.edwards@swan.ac.uk

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of different types of individualised risk communication for patients who are deciding whether to participate in screening.
DESIGN: Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES: Specialist register of the Cochrane consumers and communication review group, scientific databases, and a manual follow up of references.
SELECTION OF STUDIES: Studies were randomised controlled trials addressing decisions by patients whether or not to undergo screening and incorporating an intervention with an element of "individualised" risk communication-based on the individual's own risk factors for a condition (such as age or family history).
OUTCOME MEASURES: The principal outcome was uptake of screening tests; further cognitive and affective measures were also assessed to gauge informed decision making.
RESULTS: 13 studies were included, 10 of which addressed mammography programmes. Individualised risk communication was associated with an increased uptake of screening tests (odds ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 2.03). Few cognitive or affective outcomes were reported consistently, so it was not possible to conclude whether this increase in the uptake of tests was related to informed decision making by patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Individualised risk estimates may be effective for purposes of population health, but their effects on increasing uptake of screening programmes may not be interpretable as evidence of informed decision making by patients. Greater attention is required to ways of developing interventions for screening programmes that can achieve this.

Keywords

References

  1. Prev Med. 1999 Nov;29(5):374-82 [PMID: 10564629]
  2. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;(25):7-13 [PMID: 10854449]
  3. Health Expect. 2001 Jun;4(2):92-8 [PMID: 11359539]
  4. Br J Gen Pract. 2002 Aug;52(481):663-8 [PMID: 12171228]
  5. Br J Clin Psychol. 1992 Sep;31(3):301-6 [PMID: 1393159]
  6. BMJ. 1999 Sep 18;319(7212):731-4 [PMID: 10487995]
  7. Risk Anal. 1986 Dec;6(4):417-24 [PMID: 3602513]
  8. Am J Public Health. 1994 Jan;84(1):43-9 [PMID: 8279610]
  9. BMJ. 1998 Jul 25;317(7153):263-4 [PMID: 9677220]
  10. Med Care. 1994 Feb;32(2):118-29 [PMID: 8302104]
  11. BMJ. 1998 Apr 18;316(7139):1208-13 [PMID: 9552998]
  12. Med Decis Making. 1996 Jan-Mar;16(1):58-64 [PMID: 8717600]
  13. J Health Commun. 2001 Jan-Mar;6(1):61-82 [PMID: 11317424]
  14. BMJ. 2002 Jul 13;325(7355):78-80 [PMID: 12114238]
  15. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989 Dec 20;81(24):1879-86 [PMID: 2593165]
  16. Prev Med. 1999 Nov;29(5):355-64 [PMID: 10564627]
  17. Med Decis Making. 1995 Jan-Mar;15(1):25-30 [PMID: 7898294]
  18. Prev Med. 1993 May;22(3):350-60 [PMID: 8327418]
  19. Control Clin Trials. 1996 Feb;17(1):1-12 [PMID: 8721797]
  20. Yonsei Med J. 1991 Jun;32(2):131-8 [PMID: 1949916]
  21. Patient Educ Couns. 2001 Jun;43(3):269-85 [PMID: 11384825]
  22. Patient Educ Couns. 1998 Jan;33(1):67-81 [PMID: 9481350]
  23. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(14):i-vii, 1-133 [PMID: 10984843]
  24. BMJ. 1997 Feb 22;314(7080):533-4 [PMID: 9055702]
  25. BMJ. 2003 Apr 26;326(7395):901 [PMID: 12714468]
  26. Med Decis Making. 1999 Oct-Dec;19(4):428-34 [PMID: 10520681]
  27. J Behav Med. 1995 Apr;18(2):169-87 [PMID: 7563045]
  28. Med Decis Making. 2000 Jul-Sep;20(3):290-7 [PMID: 10929851]
  29. Health Libr Rev. 1999 Jun;16(2):112-20 [PMID: 10538792]
  30. Am J Public Health. 1999 Jun;89(6):924-6 [PMID: 10358689]
  31. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997 Jan 15;89(2):148-57 [PMID: 8998184]
  32. J Eval Clin Pract. 2000 May;6(2):177-84 [PMID: 10970011]
  33. JAMA. 1996 Jun 26;275(24):1885-92 [PMID: 8648868]
  34. Cancer. 1999 Jul 1;86(1):88-104 [PMID: 10391568]
  35. Heart. 1998 Dec;80 Suppl 2:S1-29 [PMID: 10193438]
  36. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995 Feb 15;87(4):286-92 [PMID: 7707420]
  37. J Med Screen. 1998;5(3):137-40 [PMID: 9795874]
  38. Med Decis Making. 1995 Apr-Jun;15(2):101-6 [PMID: 7783569]
  39. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1):CD001865 [PMID: 12535419]
  40. Health Expect. 2001 Jun;4(2):99-108 [PMID: 11359540]
  41. Health Educ Res. 1996 Mar;11(1):97-105 [PMID: 10160231]

MeSH Term

Communication
Decision Making
Humans
Mass Screening
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Patient Participation
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Risk Assessment

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0screeningriskpatientsuptakecommunicationwhetherreviewtestsinformeddecisionmakingprogrammeseffectsCochranecognitiveaffectiveIndividualised1mayHealthOBJECTIVE:assessdifferenttypesindividualiseddecidingparticipateDESIGN:SystematicDATASOURCES:SpecialistregisterconsumersgroupscientificdatabasesmanualfollowreferencesSELECTIONOFSTUDIES:Studiesrandomisedcontrolledtrialsaddressingdecisionsundergoincorporatinginterventionelement"individualised"communication-basedindividual'sfactorsconditionagefamilyhistoryOUTCOMEMEASURES:principaloutcomemeasuresalsoassessedgaugeRESULTS:13studiesincluded10addressedmammographyassociatedincreasedoddsratio595%confidenceinterval11203outcomesreportedconsistentlypossibleconcludeincreaserelatedCONCLUSIONS:estimateseffectivepurposespopulationhealthincreasinginterpretableevidenceGreaterattentionrequiredwaysdevelopinginterventionscanachievethisEffectscommunicatingindividualrisksprogrammes:systematicEmpiricalApproachCarePublic

Similar Articles

Cited By