TY - JOUR
T1 - Measures used in studies of informed decision making about cancer screening
T2 - A systematic review
AU - Mullen, Patricia Dolan
AU - Allen, Jennifer Dacey
AU - Glanz, Karen
AU - Fernandez, Maria E.
AU - Bowen, Deborah J.
AU - Pruitt, Sandi L.
AU - Glenn, Beth A.
AU - Pignone, Michael
N1 - Funding Information:
Research for this publication was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) cooperative agreements for the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) at Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health (1-U48 DP00043); Harvard University/Boston University Schools of Public Health (1-U48-DP-000064); University of California at Los Angeles, School of Public Health (1-U48-DP-000056); University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention (1-U48-DP-000059); University of Texas School of Public Health (UTSPH) (1-U48-DP-000057); and University of Washington, School of Public Health and Community Medicine (1-U48-DP-000050). Ms. Pruitt was supported by NCI training grant R25CA57713 (UTSPH).
PY - 2006
Y1 - 2006
N2 - Interventions to promote informed decision making (IDM) for cancer screening are increasingly common. The resulting body of literature provides an opportunity for a systematic review of measures in use. We searched standard databases for intervention trials and other studies of screening decisions and decision aids, finding 2,110 unique citations (most with abstracts) that we reduced to 104 full-text articles; 36 studies met inclusion criteria (prostate = 20, colorectal = 9, breast = 6, cervical = 1). Two independent coders abstracted data on study characteristics, constructs, and measures. Our findings revealed that most studies measured screening (or intention) and knowledge; fewer measured recommended IDM-related constructs and none measured all outcomes proposed for evaluating IDM interventions. Validity and reliability of measures received inadequate attention in study reports, and conceptual overlap exists among measures. Few IDM measures have been developed/carefully adapted from treatment measures and tested for cancer screening or in diverse populations. We recommend that new and in-progress studies emphasize outcomes beyond knowledge-participation in decision making according to personal preference, satisfaction with the process, and consistency between decisions and values. Also needed is better use of theory to guide conceptualization and operationalization of measures, greater attention to reliability and validity (particularly in diverse populations), more thorough reporting of sources and operating characteristics of measures, and increased emphasis and resources focused on these issues by funders, researchers, and journal editors.
AB - Interventions to promote informed decision making (IDM) for cancer screening are increasingly common. The resulting body of literature provides an opportunity for a systematic review of measures in use. We searched standard databases for intervention trials and other studies of screening decisions and decision aids, finding 2,110 unique citations (most with abstracts) that we reduced to 104 full-text articles; 36 studies met inclusion criteria (prostate = 20, colorectal = 9, breast = 6, cervical = 1). Two independent coders abstracted data on study characteristics, constructs, and measures. Our findings revealed that most studies measured screening (or intention) and knowledge; fewer measured recommended IDM-related constructs and none measured all outcomes proposed for evaluating IDM interventions. Validity and reliability of measures received inadequate attention in study reports, and conceptual overlap exists among measures. Few IDM measures have been developed/carefully adapted from treatment measures and tested for cancer screening or in diverse populations. We recommend that new and in-progress studies emphasize outcomes beyond knowledge-participation in decision making according to personal preference, satisfaction with the process, and consistency between decisions and values. Also needed is better use of theory to guide conceptualization and operationalization of measures, greater attention to reliability and validity (particularly in diverse populations), more thorough reporting of sources and operating characteristics of measures, and increased emphasis and resources focused on these issues by funders, researchers, and journal editors.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845404114&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33845404114&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1207/s15324796abm3203_4
DO - 10.1207/s15324796abm3203_4
M3 - Article
C2 - 17107291
AN - SCOPUS:33845404114
SN - 0883-6612
VL - 32
SP - 188
EP - 201
JO - Annals of Behavioral Medicine
JF - Annals of Behavioral Medicine
IS - 3
ER -