| Title |
Impact of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management on women’s knowledge and intentions: a randomised online experimental survey study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-017-4889-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susanne F. Meisel, Maddie Freeman, Jo Waller, Lindsay Fraser, Sue Gessler, Ian Jacobs, Jatinderpal Kalsi, Ranjit Manchanda, Belinda Rahman, Lucy Side, Jane Wardle, Anne Lanceley, Saskia C. Sanderson, on behalf of the PROMISE team |
| Abstract |
Risk stratification using genetic and other types of personal information could improve current best available approaches to ovarian cancer risk reduction, improving identification of women at increased risk of ovarian cancer and reducing unnecessary interventions for women at lower risk. Amounts of information given to women may influence key informed decision-related outcomes, e.g. knowledge. The primary aim of this study was to compare informed decision-related outcomes between women given one of two versions (gist vs. extended) of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management. This was an experimental survey study comparing the effects of brief (gist) information with lengthier, more detailed (extended) information on cognitions relevant to informed decision-making about participating in risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Women with no personal history of ovarian cancer were recruited through an online survey company and randomised to view the gist (n = 512) or extended (n = 519) version of a website-based decision aid and completed an online survey. Primary outcomes were knowledge and intentions. Secondary outcomes included attitudes (values) and decisional conflict. There were no significant differences between the gist and extended conditions in knowledge about ovarian cancer (time*group interaction: F = 0.20, p = 0.66) or intention to participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment (t(1029) = 0.43, p = 0.67). There were also no between-groups differences in secondary outcomes. In the sample overall (n = 1031), knowledge about ovarian cancer increased from before to after exposure to the decision aid (from 5.71 to 6.77 out of a possible 10: t = 19.04, p < 0.001), and 74% of participants said that they would participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment. No differences in knowledge or intentions were found between women who viewed the gist version and women who viewed the extended version of a decision aid about risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Knowledge increased for women in both decision aid groups. Further research is needed to determine the ideal volume and type of content for decision aids about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry; registration number: ISRCTN48627877 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 33 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Psychology | 5 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 35 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,959,314
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,993
of 14,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,533
of 294,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#121
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 294,546 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.