Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite concerns that facilitating informed choice would decrease diabetes screening uptake, 'informed choice' invitations that increased knowledge did not affect attendance (the DICISION trial). We explored possible reason...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2010-12-01
|
| Series: | BMC Public Health |
| Online Access: | http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/768 |
| _version_ | 1819027731601424384 |
|---|---|
| author | Griffin Simon Hankins Matthew Kinmonth Ann Sutton Stephen Kellar Ian Mann Eleanor Marteau Theresa M |
| author_facet | Griffin Simon Hankins Matthew Kinmonth Ann Sutton Stephen Kellar Ian Mann Eleanor Marteau Theresa M |
| author_sort | Griffin Simon |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite concerns that facilitating informed choice would decrease diabetes screening uptake, 'informed choice' invitations that increased knowledge did not affect attendance (the DICISION trial). We explored possible reasons using data from an experimental analogue study undertaken to develop the invitations. We tested a model of the impact on knowledge, attitude and intentions of a diabetes screening invitation designed to facilitate informed choices.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>417 men and women aged 40-69 recruited from town centres in the UK were randomised to receive either an invitation for diabetes screening designed to facilitate informed choice or a standard type of invitation. Knowledge of the invitation, attitude towards diabetes screening, and intention to attend for diabetes screening were assessed two weeks later.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Attitude was a strong predictor of screening intentions (β = .64, p = .001). Knowledge added to the model but was a weak predictor of intentions (β = .13, p = .005). However, invitation type did not predict attitudes towards screening but did predict knowledge (β = -.45, p = .001), which mediated a small effect of invitation type on intention (indirect β = -.06, p = .017).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These findings may explain why information about the benefits and harms of screening did not reduce diabetes screening attendance in the DICISION trial.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T05:47:08Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-bdc3d2a373ca401c9a0f520375a9262d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2458 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T05:47:08Z |
| publishDate | 2010-12-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Public Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-bdc3d2a373ca401c9a0f520375a9262d2022-12-21T19:14:06ZengBMCBMC Public Health1471-24582010-12-0110176810.1186/1471-2458-10-768Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue studyGriffin SimonHankins MatthewKinmonth AnnSutton StephenKellar IanMann EleanorMarteau Theresa M<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite concerns that facilitating informed choice would decrease diabetes screening uptake, 'informed choice' invitations that increased knowledge did not affect attendance (the DICISION trial). We explored possible reasons using data from an experimental analogue study undertaken to develop the invitations. We tested a model of the impact on knowledge, attitude and intentions of a diabetes screening invitation designed to facilitate informed choices.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>417 men and women aged 40-69 recruited from town centres in the UK were randomised to receive either an invitation for diabetes screening designed to facilitate informed choice or a standard type of invitation. Knowledge of the invitation, attitude towards diabetes screening, and intention to attend for diabetes screening were assessed two weeks later.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Attitude was a strong predictor of screening intentions (β = .64, p = .001). Knowledge added to the model but was a weak predictor of intentions (β = .13, p = .005). However, invitation type did not predict attitudes towards screening but did predict knowledge (β = -.45, p = .001), which mediated a small effect of invitation type on intention (indirect β = -.06, p = .017).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These findings may explain why information about the benefits and harms of screening did not reduce diabetes screening attendance in the DICISION trial.</p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/768 |
| spellingShingle | Griffin Simon Hankins Matthew Kinmonth Ann Sutton Stephen Kellar Ian Mann Eleanor Marteau Theresa M Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study BMC Public Health |
| title | Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study |
| title_full | Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study |
| title_fullStr | Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study |
| title_short | Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study |
| title_sort | impact of informed choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge attitude and intentions an analogue study |
| url | http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/768 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT griffinsimon impactofinformedchoiceinvitationsondiabetesscreeningknowledgeattitudeandintentionsananaloguestudy AT hankinsmatthew impactofinformedchoiceinvitationsondiabetesscreeningknowledgeattitudeandintentionsananaloguestudy AT kinmonthann impactofinformedchoiceinvitationsondiabetesscreeningknowledgeattitudeandintentionsananaloguestudy AT suttonstephen impactofinformedchoiceinvitationsondiabetesscreeningknowledgeattitudeandintentionsananaloguestudy AT kellarian impactofinformedchoiceinvitationsondiabetesscreeningknowledgeattitudeandintentionsananaloguestudy AT manneleanor impactofinformedchoiceinvitationsondiabetesscreeningknowledgeattitudeandintentionsananaloguestudy AT marteautheresam impactofinformedchoiceinvitationsondiabetesscreeningknowledgeattitudeandintentionsananaloguestudy |