IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v65y2007i5p890-899.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient perspectives on information and choice in cancer screening: A qualitative study in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Jepson, Ruth Gillian
  • Hewison, Jenny
  • Thompson, Andrew
  • Weller, David

Abstract

The principle of informed choice has been recently incorporated into cancer screening policy. However, there is limited empirical or theoretical work on informed choice in this particular context. The main aim of the study reported here was to explore the information needs of people invited for screening, and to gain insights into the relationship between the information they wanted and the choices they made. A qualitative study (nine focus groups and 15 individual interviews) was undertaken with people who had contrasting experiences (and outcomes) of either breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening at two locations in Scotland, UK. Findings suggest that lay people define and conceptualise informed choice differently from policy makers. The study also found that information about the disease was as important to people as information on the risks and limitations of screening. However, information may have little part to play in the choices people make. Rather, it may have more impact on outcomes such as satisfaction and anxiety. An explicit policy aim in promoting informed choice is to enhance patient autonomy and to prevent people from being deceived or coerced. However, this research shows that the provision of evidence-based information alone does not necessarily mean that an informed choice is made. People may not read, want, or understand the information, and, additionally, they may not be able to carry out their intended choice. There may be personal barriers, such as physical or mental health problems and language, or organisational barriers, such as the availability of the service/intervention and access. Therefore, the term 'informed choice' might not be useful in this context.

Suggested Citation

  • Jepson, Ruth Gillian & Hewison, Jenny & Thompson, Andrew & Weller, David, 2007. "Patient perspectives on information and choice in cancer screening: A qualitative study in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 890-899, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:5:p:890-899
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(07)00194-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Braun, Virginia & Gavey, Nicola, 1999. "`With the best of reasons': cervical cancer prevention policy and the suppression of sexual risk factor information," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(10), pages 1463-1474, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Valentine, Kylie, 2010. "A consideration of medicalisation: Choice, engagement and other responsibilities of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(5), pages 950-957, September.
    2. Armstrong, Natalie & Murphy, Elizabeth, 2008. "Weaving meaning? An exploration of the interplay between lay and professional understandings of cervical cancer risk," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(7), pages 1074-1082, October.
    3. Chapple, Alison & Ziebland, Sue & Hewitson, Paul & McPherson, Ann, 2008. "What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2425-2435, June.
    4. Pienaar, Kiran & Petersen, Alan & Bowman, Diana M., 2019. "Matters of fact and politics: Generating expectations of cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 408-416.
    5. Trude Andreassen & Adriana Melnic & Rejane Figueiredo & Kåre Moen & Ofelia Şuteu & Florian Nicula & Giske Ursin & Elisabete Weiderpass, 2018. "Attendance to cervical cancer screening among Roma and non-Roma women living in North-Western region of Romania," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 63(5), pages 609-619, June.
    6. Barigozzi, Francesca & Levaggi, Rosella, 2008. "Emotions in physician agency," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 1-14, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:5:p:890-899. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.