Suppr超能文献

知情选择的一种衡量方式。

A measure of informed choice.

作者信息

Marteau T M, Dormandy E, Michie S

机构信息

Psychology and Genetics Research Group, Guy's, King's and St Thomas's School of Medicine, King's College, London, UK.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2001 Jun;4(2):99-108. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00140.x.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To develop a measure of informed choice. CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT: The measure is based on the following definition of an informed choice: one that is based on relevant knowledge, consistent with the decision-maker's values and behaviourally implemented. The measure comprises an eight-item scale of knowledge, a four-item scale assessing attitudes towards undergoing the screening test and a record of test uptake.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-six women awaiting their first antenatal clinic appointments. MEASURE DEVELOPMENT: In women offered a screening test in pregnancy, the internal reliability of both the knowledge and the attitude scales was acceptable (alpha coefficients 0.82 and 0.83, respectively). Of the 42 women completing both scales, 18 were classified as having made an informed choice, and 24 were classified as having made an uninformed choice.

CONCLUSION

The results of this preliminary study provide some evidence to support the feasibility of conceptualizing and measuring informed choices regarding screening using a brief measure assessing knowledge and attitudes. The validity and utility of this approach awaits further studies, involving larger numbers of participants, offered different screening tests.

摘要

目的

制定一种知情选择的衡量方法。

概念化与测量

该衡量方法基于以下对知情选择的定义:基于相关知识、符合决策者价值观且在行为上得以实施的选择。该衡量方法包括一个由八项内容组成的知识量表、一个由四项内容组成的评估接受筛查测试态度的量表以及一份测试接受情况记录。

参与者

66名等待首次产前门诊预约的女性。

测量方法的制定

在接受孕期筛查测试的女性中,知识量表和态度量表的内部信度均可接受(α系数分别为0.82和0.83)。在完成这两个量表的42名女性中,18名被归类为做出了知情选择,24名被归类为做出了非知情选择。

结论

这项初步研究的结果提供了一些证据,支持使用一种评估知识和态度的简短方法来概念化和衡量关于筛查的知情选择的可行性。这种方法的有效性和实用性有待进一步研究,涉及更多参与者,并提供不同的筛查测试。

相似文献

1
A measure of informed choice.
Health Expect. 2001 Jun;4(2):99-108. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00140.x.
2
Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening?
Genet Med. 2005 May-Jun;7(5):332-8. doi: 10.1097/01.gim.0000162876.65555.ab.
3
Development of a measure of informed choice suitable for use in low literacy populations.
Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Jun;66(3):278-95. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.01.001. Epub 2007 Feb 14.
4
Development and validation of a measure of informed choice for women undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy.
Eur J Hum Genet. 2016 Jun;24(6):809-16. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.207. Epub 2015 Oct 28.
5
Do pregnant women in Greece make informed choices about antenatal screening for Down's syndrome? A questionnaire survey.
Midwifery. 2008 Jun;24(2):153-62. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2006.09.001. Epub 2007 Feb 20.
6
Attitude, knowledge and informed choice towards prenatal screening for Down Syndrome: a cross-sectional study.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 Nov 12;18(1):439. doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-2077-6.
8
The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study.
Patient Educ Couns. 2002 Sep;48(1):87-91. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00089-7.
9
Informed decision making in the context of prenatal screening.
Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Oct;63(1-2):110-7. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.09.007. Epub 2005 Oct 20.

引用本文的文献

1
[Enlightenment through official vaccination communication: an experimental study comparing evidence-based fact boxes with nudges and advertising].
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2025 Sep;68(9):1024-1034. doi: 10.1007/s00103-025-04109-2. Epub 2025 Aug 4.
2
Can health information and decision aids decrease inequity in health care? A systematic review.
BMJ Public Health. 2025 Jul 5;3(2):e001923. doi: 10.1136/bmjph-2024-001923. eCollection 2025.
3
Early Detection of Common Skin Diseases, Including Leprosy: Development and Validation of an Awareness Questionnaire.
Int J Public Health. 2025 Jun 10;70:1607938. doi: 10.3389/ijph.2025.1607938. eCollection 2025.
5
Exploring Predictors of HPV Vaccination Decisions: A Stage-Based Study on Chinese Parents of Girls.
Adolesc Health Med Ther. 2025 Apr 25;15:119-131. doi: 10.2147/AHMT.S500527. eCollection 2024.
8
Healthcare AI, explainability, and the human-machine relationship: a (not so) novel practical challenge.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 Feb 28;12:1545409. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1545409. eCollection 2025.

本文引用的文献

1
Variation in uptake of serum screening: the role of service delivery.
Prenat Diagn. 2002 Jan;22(1):67-9. doi: 10.1002/pd.245.
2
Measuring the involvement of patients in shared decision-making: a systematic review of instruments.
Patient Educ Couns. 2001 Apr;43(1):5-22. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(00)00149-x.
6
Lack of knowledge in health professionals: a barrier to providing information to patients?
Qual Health Care. 1994 Jun;3(2):75-8. doi: 10.1136/qshc.3.2.75.
7
Evidence-informed patient choice. Practical issues of involving patients in decisions about health care technologies.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998 Spring;14(2):212-25. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300012204.
9
How doctors and patients discuss routine clinical decisions. Informed decision making in the outpatient setting.
J Gen Intern Med. 1997 Jun;12(6):339-45. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.00057.x.
10
Uptake of cystic fibrosis testing in primary care: supply push or demand pull?
BMJ. 1993 Jun 12;306(6892):1584-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6892.1584.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验