Measuring informed choice in population-based reproductive genetic screening: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ames AG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4266751 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Measuring informed choice in population-based reproductive genetic screening: a systematic review.
Ames Alice Grace AG Metcalfe Sylvia Ann SA Dalton Archibald Alison A Duncan Rony Emily RE Emery Jon J
European journal of human genetics : EJHG 20140521 1
Genetic screening and health-care guidelines recommend that programmes should facilitate informed choice. It is therefore important that accurate measures of informed choice are available to evaluate such programmes. This review synthesises and appraises measures used to evaluate informed choice in population-based genetic screening programmes for reproductive risk. Databases were searched for studies offering genetic screening for the purpose of establishing reproductive risk to an adult popula ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:There is general agreement among public health practitioners, academics, and policymakers that people offered health screening tests should be able to make informed choices about whether to accept. Robust measures are necessary in order to gauge the extent to which informed choice is achieved in practice and whether efforts to improve it have succeeded. This review aims to add to the literature on how to improve methods of measuring informed choice. We discuss and critique commonly-used approaches and outline possible alternative methods that might address the issues identified. We explore the challenges of defining what information should be provided about screening and hence understood by service users, appraise the use of 'thresholds' to define e.g. positive attitudes towards screening, and describe problems inherent in conceptualising 'informed choice' as a single dichotomous outcome that either does or does not occur. Suggestions for future research include providing greater detail on why particular aspects of screening information were considered important, analysing knowledge and attitude measures at an ordinal or continuous level (avoiding problematic decisions about dichotomising data in order to set thresholds), and reconceptualising informed choice as a multifactorial set of outcomes, rather than a unitary one.
| S-EPMC5107638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesFecal blood testing is a noninvasive alternative to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and is preferred by a substantial proportion of individuals. However, participant-related determinants of the choice of screening method, particularly up-to-date screening status, remain less studied. We aimed to determine if up-to-date screening status was related to choosing a fecal blood test over colonoscopy.SettingParticipants in the population-based cross-sectional survey study Bus Santé in Geneva, Switzerland - aged 50-69 years.DesignCross-sectional survey study using mailed questionnaires inquiring about CRC screening method of choice after providing information on advantages and disadvantages of both screening methods. We used multivariable logistic regression models to determine the association between up-to-date CRC screening status and choosing fecal blood testing.Key resultsWe included 1,227 participants. Thirty-eight percent of participants did not have up-to-date CRC screening. Overall, colonoscopy (54.9%) was preferred to fecal blood testing (45.1%) (p < 0.001) as screening method of choice. However, screening method choices differed between those with (65.6% colonoscopy and 34.4% fecal blood testing) and without up-to-date CRC screening (36.5% colonoscopy and 63.5% fecal blood testing). Not having up-to-date CRC screening was associated with a higher probability of choosing fecal blood testing as screening method (odds ratio = 2.6 [1.9; 3.7], p < 0.001) after adjustment for the aforementioned confounders.ConclusionsNot having up-to-date screening was independently associated with fecal blood testing as the preferred method for CRC screening. Proposing this method to this subpopulation, in a context of shared decision, could potentially increase screening uptake in settings where it is already high.
| S-EPMC8077459 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify and summarise existing indices for measuring multimorbidity beyond disease counts, to establish which indices include mental health comorbidities or outcomes, and to develop recommendations based on applicability, performance, and usage. DESIGN:Systematic review. DATA SOURCES:Seven medical research databases (Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, and CINAHL Plus) from inception to October 2018 and bibliographies and citations of relevant papers. Searches were limited to English language publications. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION:Original articles describing a new multimorbidity index including more information than disease counts and not focusing on comorbidity associated with one specific disease. Studies were of adults based in the community or at population level. RESULTS:Among 7128 search results, 5560 unique titles were identified. After screening against eligibility criteria the review finally included 35 papers. As index components, 25 indices used conditions (weighted or in combination with other parameters), five used diagnostic categories, four used drug use, and one used physiological measures. Predicted outcomes included mortality (18 indices), healthcare use or costs (13), hospital admission (13), and health related quality of life (7). 29 indices considered some aspect of mental health, with most including it as a comorbidity. 12 indices are recommended for use. CONCLUSIONS:35 multimorbidity indices are available, with differing components and outcomes. Researchers and clinicians should examine existing indices for suitability before creating new ones. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017074211.
| S-EPMC7190061 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundScreening programmes aim to identify individuals at higher risk of developing a disease or condition. While globally, there is agreement that people who attend screening should be fully informed, there is no consensus about how this should be achieved. We conducted a mixed methods study across eight different countries to understand how countries address informed choice across two screening programmes: breast cancer and fetal trisomy anomaly screening.MethodsFourteen senior level employees from organisations who produce and deliver decision aids to assist informed choice were interviewed, and their decision aids (n = 15) were evaluated using documentary analysis.ResultsWe discovered that attempts to achieve informed choice via decision aids generate two key tensions (i) between improving informed choice and increasing uptake and (ii) between improving informed choice and comprehensibility of the information presented. Comprehensibility is fundamentally at tension with an aim of being fully informed. These tensions emerged in both the interviews and documentary analysis.ConclusionWe conclude that organisations need to decide whether their overarching aim is ensuring high levels of uptake or maximising informed choice to participate in screening programmes. Consideration must then be given to all levels of development and distribution of information produced to reflect each organisation's aim. The comprehensibility of the DA must also be considered, as this may be reduced when informed choice is prioritised.
| S-EPMC9743591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This systematic literature review investigates factors impacting on clinicians' decisions to offer genetic tests in their practice, and maps them to a theoretical behaviour change framework. Better understanding of these factors will inform the design of effective interventions to integrate genomics tests into clinical care. We conducted a narrative synthesis of empirical research of medical specialists' perspectives on and experiences of offering genetic tests to their patients. This review was based upon the PRISMA statement and guidelines for reviewing qualitative research. Four electronic data sources were searched-MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed. Studies were independently assessed by two authors. Content analysis was applied to map the findings of included studies to a framework validated for behaviour and implementation research, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). The TDF describes 14 factors known to influence behaviour and has been applied in diverse clinical settings to understand and/or modify health professional behaviour. Thirty-four studies published in 39 articles met inclusion and quality criteria. Most studies were published after 2011 (54%), Northern American (82%), quantitative in design (68%) and addressed familial cancer genetic tests (53%). Of the 14 TDF factors, 13 were identified. The three most common factors were: Environmental Context and Resources (n?=?33), Beliefs about Consequences (n?=?26), and Knowledge (n?=?23). To support the adoption of genomic tests beyond specialist services, nuanced interventions targeting considerations beyond clinician education are needed. For instance, interventions addressing organisational constraints which may restrict clinicians' ability to offer genomic tests are required alongside those targeting factors intrinsic to the clinician.
| S-EPMC6138746 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study explored individuals' preferences for genetic testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) in a screening situation and their willingness to participate in genetic testing for Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), and familial colorectal cancer (FCC). For that purpose, 532 respondents aged 55-65 years completed a Discrete Choice Experiment. Using panel latent class models, the preferences for two screening situation characteristics (the probability of being genetically predisposed and the probability of developing CRC) and screening test characteristics (the frequency of preventive colonoscopies and CRC survival) were estimated. Based on these preferences, respondents' willingness to participate in the three screening initiatives was estimated. Lower-educated respondents and respondents who express serious anxiety and worries found colonoscopy frequency and the probability of developing CRC relatively more important and survival relatively less important compared with higher-educated respondents and respondents who express no anxiety and worries. These differences in preferences resulted in opposite preferences for participation in FCC and FAP screening. In conclusion, the general population is willing to participate in genetic screening for CRC. If individuals are suspected of genetic or familial CRC, they should at least be informed about their increased risk of being genetically predisposed and about the importance of participating in all preventive follow-up colonoscopies in order to maximize survival.
| S-EPMC4755369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Studies suggest that 1-3% of the general population in the United States unknowingly carry a genetic risk factor for a common hereditary disease. Population genetic screening is the process of offering otherwise healthy patients in the general population testing for genomic variants that predispose them to diseases that are clinically actionable, meaning that they can be prevented or mitigated if they are detected early. Population genetic screening may significantly reduce morbidity and mortality from these diseases by informing risk-specific prevention or treatment strategies and facilitating appropriate participation in early detection. To better understand current barriers, facilitators, perceptions, and outcomes related to the implementation of population genetic screening, we conducted a systematic review and searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for articles published from date of database inception to May 2020. We included articles that 1) detailed the perspectives of participants in population genetic screening programs and 2) described the barriers, facilitators, perceptions, and outcomes related to population genetic screening programs among patients, healthcare providers, and the public. We excluded articles that 1) focused on direct-to-consumer or risk-based genetic testing and 2) were published before January 2000. Thirty articles met these criteria. Barriers and facilitators to population genetic screening were organized by the Social Ecological Model and further categorized by themes. We found that research in population genetic screening has focused on stakeholder attitudes with all included studies designed to elucidate individuals' perceptions. Additionally, inadequate knowledge and perceived limited clinical utility presented a barrier for healthcare provider uptake. There were very few studies that conducted long-term follow-up and evaluation of population genetic screening. Our findings suggest that these and other factors, such as prescreen counseling and education, may play a role in the adoption and implementation of population genetic screening. Future studies to investigate macro-level determinants, strategies to increase provider buy-in and knowledge, delivery models for prescreen counseling, and long-term outcomes of population genetic screening are needed for the effective design and implementation of such programs. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020198198.
| S-EPMC9289280 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify and describe the standardized interconception and preconception screening tools for reproductive health needs that are applicable in general outpatient clinical practice.Data sources and study settingThis systematic review identifies research on pregnancy intention screening and counseling tools, and standardized approaches to preconception and interconception care. We focus on tools designed for clinical settings, but also include research tools with potential for clinical implementation. These tools may include a component of contraceptive counseling, but those focusing solely on contraceptive counseling were excluded. Data were collected from studies done in the United States between January 2000 and March 2022.Study designWe performed a systematic literature search to generate a list of unique tools, assessed the quality of evidence supporting each tool, and described the peer-reviewed clinical applications of each. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to appraise the quality of individual studies.Data collection/extraction methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases for standardized preconception and interconception health screening tools published in English from January 2000 through March 2022. We used keywords "preconception care," "interconception care," "family planning," "contraception," "reproductive health services," and "counseling." Utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines, we screened titles and abstracts to identify studies for full text review.Principal findingsThe search resulted in 15,399 studies. After removing 4172 duplicates, we screened 11,227 titles/abstracts and advanced 207 for full-text review. From these, we identified 53 eligible studies representing 22 tools/standardized approaches, of which 10 had evidence from randomized clinical trials. These ranged widely in design, setting, and population of study.ConclusionsClinicians have a choice of tools when implementing standard reproductive screening services. A growing body of research can inform the selection of an appropriate tool, and more study is needed to establish effects on long-term patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC10012234 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs interest in reproductive genetic carrier screening rises, with increased availability, the role of healthcare practitioners is central in guiding uptake aligned with a couples' values and beliefs. Therefore, practitioners' views on implementation are critical to the success of any reproductive genetic carrier screening programme.AimTo explore healthcare practitioners' perceptions of the barriers and enablers to implementation.Materials & methodsWe undertook a systematic review of the literature searching seven databases using health practitioner, screening and implementation terms returning 490 articles.ResultsScreening led to the inclusion of 26 articles for full-text review. We found three interconnected themes relating to reproductive genetic carrier screening: (i) use and impact, (ii) practitioners' beliefs and expectations and (iii) resources.DiscussionBarriers and enablers to implementation were present within each theme and grouping these determinants by (a) community for example lack of public interest, (b) practitioner for example lack of practitioner time and (c) organisation for example lack of effective metrics, reveals a preponderance of practitioner barriers and organisational enablers. Linking barriers with potential enablers leaves several barriers unresolved (e.g., costs for couples) implying additional interventions may be required.ConclusionFuture research should draw on the findings from this study to develop and test strategies to facilitate appropriate offering of reproductive genetic carrier screening by healthcare practitioners.
| S-EPMC8252081 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceUS guidelines recommend that physicians engage in shared decision-making with men considering prostate cancer screening.ObjectiveTo estimate the association of decision aids with decisional outcomes in prostate cancer screening.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception through June 19, 2018.Study selectionRandomized trials comparing decision aids for prostate cancer screening with usual care.Data extraction and synthesisIndependent duplicate assessment of eligibility and risk of bias, rating of quality of the decision aids, random-effects meta-analysis, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations rating of the quality of evidence.Main outcomes and measuresKnowledge, decisional conflict, screening discussion, and screening choice.ResultsOf 19 eligible trials (12 781 men), 9 adequately concealed allocation and 8 blinded outcome assessment. Of 12 decision aids with available information, only 4 reported the likelihood of a true-negative test result, and 3 presented the likelihood of false-negative test results or the next step if the screening test result was negative. Decision aids are possibly associated with improvement in knowledge (risk ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.09-1.73; I2 = 67%; risk difference, 12.1; low quality), are probably associated with a small decrease in decisional conflict (mean difference on a 100-point scale, -4.19; 95% CI, -7.06 to -1.33; I2 = 75%; moderate quality), and are possibly not associated with whether physicians and patients discuss prostate cancer screening (risk ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.90-1.39; I2 = 60%; low quality) or with men's decision to undergo prostate cancer screening (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03; I2 = 36%; low quality).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study provide moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared with usual care are associated with a small decrease in decisional conflict and low-quality evidence that they are associated with an increase in knowledge but not with whether physicians and patients discussed prostate cancer screening or with screening choice. Results suggest that further progress in facilitating effective shared decision-making may require decision aids that not only provide education to patients but are specifically targeted to promote shared decision-making in the patient-physician encounter.
| S-EPMC6593633 | biostudies-literature