IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v24y2004i4p379-385.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Women’s Preferences for Doctor’s Involvement in Decisions about Mammography Screening

Author

Listed:
  • Eric Chamot

    (University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Public Health, 1530 3rd Avenue S., RPHB 217H, Birmingham AL 35294-0022; echamot@ms.soph.uab.edu.)

  • Agathe Charvet
  • Thomas V. Perneger

    (The Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland; Quality of Care Unit, Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland)

Abstract

Objectives . To assess women’s preferences for doctor’s involvement in mammography screening decisions . Methods . Mail survey of 50-to 69-year-old women residing in Geneva, Switzerland (N = 2216 ). Results . Women considered that the decision to undergo mammography screening should be made by the doctor alone (5.6%) , doctor primarily (42.6%) ,shared equally between woman and doctor (45.0%) ,woman primarily (4.2%), and woman alone (2.4%). These subgroups differed considerably. Compared to women in the shared equally group ,doctor alone respondents were more likely to be older, to be born outside Switzerland, and to wish to know as late as possible about having cancer. In contrast , woman alone respondents were more likely to report no previous mammogram, to expect bad news frommammograms, and to feel nervous about screening . Conclusions . Most women wished to see their doctor involved in the decision to undergo a screening mammogram. Nevertheless, notable minorities held other opinions .

Suggested Citation

  • Eric Chamot & Agathe Charvet & Thomas V. Perneger, 2004. "Women’s Preferences for Doctor’s Involvement in Decisions about Mammography Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(4), pages 379-385, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:4:p:379-385
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04267011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X04267011
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X04267011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Entwistle, Vikki A. & Skea, Zoë C. & O'Donnell, Máire T., 2001. "Decisions about treatment: interpretations of two measures of control by women having a hysterectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 721-732, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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.
    1. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.
    2. O' Donnell, Máire & Monz, Brigitta & Hunskaar, Steinar, 2007. "General preferences for involvement in treatment decision making among European women with urinary incontinence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(9), pages 1914-1924, May.
    3. Jan Florin & Anna Ehrenberg & Margareta Ehnfors, 2006. "Patient participation in clinical decision‐making in nursing: a comparative study of nurses’ and patients’ perceptions," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(12), pages 1498-1508, December.

    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:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:4:p:379-385. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.