Promoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems

Briss, Peter A.; Rimer, Barbara K.; Reilley, Brigg; Coates, Ralph C; Lee, Nancy C.; Mullen, Patricia Dolan; Corso, Phaedra S.; Hutchinson, Angela B.; Hiatt, Robert A.; Kerner, Jon; George, Prethibha; White, Cornelia; Gandhi, Nisha; Saraiya, Mona; Breslow, Rosalind A.; Isham, George; Teutsch, Steven M.; Hinman, Alan R.; Lawrence, Robert S.

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2003.09.012

Cited by 293 publications

(222 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

216

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants in a prostate cancer screening study also had limited knowledge about the meaning of the test results [20]. The results of the present study also confirm the findings of previous cancer screening studies that showed a better knowledge among participants than nonparticipants [14,21]. For example, participants in a prostate cancer trial were more aware than nonparticipants that someone can have cancer without having symptoms [17].…”

Section: Knowledgesupporting

confidence: 81%

Informed participation in a randomised controlled trial of computed tomography screening for lung cancer

Bergh¹,

Essink-Bot²,

Klaveren³

et al. 2009

European Respiratory Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The actual lung cancer (screening) knowledge, attitudes, risk perceptions, reasons to participate in or decline participation, and informed decisions of subjects who decided to or decided not to participate in the Dutch-Belgian randomised controlled trial for lung cancer screening in high-risk subjects (the NELSON trial) were evaluated.A total of 2,500 high-risk subjects were asked to complete a questionnaire 3 weeks after they had received a brochure with information about the trial. Differences in knowledge, attitude and risk perception between participants and nonparticipants were analysed with logistic regression analyses adjusted for sex and smoking status.The questionnaire response of trial participants was 80% (n5889) whereas the response of nonparticipants was low (7%, n597) and selective. Participants' responses to knowledge items on lung cancer as a disease were on average more often correct (mean¡SD 68¡17%) than items on lung cancer screening (49¡29%). Participants had adequate knowledge on lung cancer screening (51%) more often than the nonparticipants (38%; p50.009). Of the decisions regarding participation, 49% were uninformed, mainly due to insufficient knowledge. Most of the participants (99%) and 64% of the nonparticipants had a positive attitude towards lung cancer screening.Additional efforts are required to improve the knowledge and understanding of subjects who are in the process of decision-making regarding participation in a lung cancer screening trial.

show abstract

Section: Knowledgesupporting

confidence: 81%

Informed participation in a randomised controlled trial of computed tomography screening for lung cancer

Bergh¹,

Essink-Bot²,

Klaveren³

et al. 2009

European Respiratory Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 Define the Problem SDM, first formally defined in 1982 [13], is a form of informed decision making (IDM) that takes place in the clinical setting (IDM also applies to communities or healthcare systems) that is explicitly interactive and balances evidence with values [14]. In SDM, patient and doctor relate to and influence each other as they work together to make a decision about the patient's health.…”

Section: Take the Patient's Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Shared Decision Making a Utopian Dream or an Achievable Goal?

Blair

2015

Patient

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea of shared decision making (SDM) between patient and physician grew out of a generalized challenge to traditional social hierarchies that occurred in the middle of the last century. Governments have espoused SDM, thousands of articles about it have been published, and evidence has shown that it improves some of the healthcare processes as well as patient outcomes. Yet it has not been widely adopted. From their cross-disciplinary perspective (practical theology and clinical medicine), the authors locate this reluctance in the unfolding of scientific paradigm shifts, summarize the perceived risks and benefits of SDM and the evidence for each, and suggest practical, achievable approaches for clinicians. Finally, they explore some important emerging territories for SDM. Key Points for Decision MakersShared decision making (SDM) has proved its worth and is achievable … but debates continue.Several validated models are available right now for use in clinical practice.People can and are being successfully trained in SDM.SDM is needed to address emerging value-laden clinical decisions such as those about caring for the elderly and about genetic testing.

show abstract

“…[43][44][45][46] This article outlines a systems approach to the implementation of IPV screening and counseling, with a focus on integrated health and advocacy service delivery, use of EHR tools and cross-sector partnerships, and identifies areas for research on approaches to improve the uptake and consistent implementation of these IPV screening and counseling guidelines in the United States. [47][48][49] …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Intimate Partner Violence Assessment and Intervention into Healthcare in the United States: A Systems Approach

Miller

McCaw

Humphreys

et al. 2015

Journal of Women's Health

146

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Institute of Medicine, United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and national healthcare organizations recommend screening and counseling for intimate partner violence (IPV) within the US healthcare setting. The Affordable Care Act includes screening and brief counseling for IPV as part of required free preventive services for women. Thus, IPV screening and counseling must be implemented safely and effectively throughout the healthcare delivery system. Health professional education is one strategy for increasing screening and counseling in healthcare settings, but studies on improving screening and counseling for other health conditions highlight the critical role of making changes within the healthcare delivery system to drive desired improvements in clinician screening practices and health outcomes.This article outlines a systems approach to the implementation of IPV screening and counseling, with a focus on integrated health and advocacy service delivery to support identification and interventions, use of electronic health record (EHR) tools, and cross-sector partnerships. Practice and policy recommendations include (1) ensuring staff and clinician training in effective, client-centered IPV assessment that connects patients to support and services regardless of disclosure; (2) supporting enhancement of EHRs to prompt appropriate clinical care for IPV and facilitate capturing more detailed and standardized IPV data; and (3) integrating IPV care into quality and meaningful use measures. Research directions include studies across various health settings and populations, development of quality measures and patient-centered outcomes, and tests of multilevel approaches to improve the uptake and consistent implementation of evidence-informed IPV screening and counseling guidelines.

show abstract

Promoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems

Cited by 293 publications

References 43 publications

Informed participation in a randomised controlled trial of computed tomography screening for lung cancer

Informed participation in a randomised controlled trial of computed tomography screening for lung cancer

Is Shared Decision Making a Utopian Dream or an Achievable Goal?

Integrating Intimate Partner Violence Assessment and Intervention into Healthcare in the United States: A Systems Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About