Psychology Department at Guy's, Health Psychology Section, 5th Floor Bermondsey Wing, Guy's Campus, London SE1 9RT, UK.
BMC Public Health. 2010 Dec 17;10:768. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-768.
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.
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.
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).
These findings may explain why information about the benefits and harms of screening did not reduce diabetes screening attendance in the DICISION trial.
尽管人们担心促进知情选择会降低糖尿病筛查的参与率，但增加知识的“知情选择”邀请并没有影响参与度（DICISION 试验）。我们使用为开发这些邀请而进行的一项实验模拟研究的数据，探讨了可能的原因。我们检验了一个旨在促进知情选择的糖尿病筛查邀请对知识、态度和意向的影响模型。
从英国市中心招募了 417 名年龄在 40-69 岁的男性和女性，将他们随机分配接受旨在促进知情选择的糖尿病筛查邀请或标准类型的邀请。两周后评估他们对邀请的了解程度、对糖尿病筛查的态度以及参加糖尿病筛查的意愿。
态度是筛查意向的强有力预测因素（β=0.64，p=0.001）。知识虽然对模型有一定贡献，但预测意向的能力较弱（β=0.13，p=0.005）。然而，邀请类型并不能预测对筛查的态度，但确实能预测知识（β=-0.45，p=0.001），这解释了邀请类型对意向的微小影响（间接β=-0.06，p=0.017）。
这些发现可能解释了为什么在 DICISION 试验中，关于筛查的益处和危害的信息并没有降低糖尿病筛查的参与率。
