Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests

  1. Adrian GK Edwards1,*,
  2. Gurudutt Naik1,
  3. Harry Ahmed1,
  4. Glyn J Elwyn1,
  5. Timothy Pickles2,
  6. Kerry Hood2,
  7. Rebecca Playle2

Editorial Group: Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group

Published Online: 28 FEB 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 24 MAR 2012

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001865.pub3


How to Cite

Edwards AGK, Naik G, Ahmed H, Elwyn GJ, Pickles T, Hood K, Playle R. Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD001865. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001865.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Cardiff University, Cochrane Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales, UK

  2. 2

    Cardiff University, South East Wales Trials Unit, Institute of Translation, Innovation, Methodology and Engagement, Cardiff, Wales, UK

*Adrian GK Edwards, Cochrane Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, 2nd Floor, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff, Wales, CF14 4YS, UK. edwardsag@cardiff.ac.uk. adriangkedwards@btinternet.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (conclusions changed)
  2. Published Online: 28 FEB 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Study flow diagram. Search dates from 2006 to March 2012.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 1 Informed decision.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 2 knowledge regarding screening test / condition concerned.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 3 knowledge regarding screening test / condition concerned- proportion with good knowledge.
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 4 knowledge regarding screening test / condition concerned- proportion with good knowledge.
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 5 accurately perceived risk.
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 6 perceived risk - perceiving self as appropriate candidate for test.
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 7 Anxiety (Cancer related anxiety and helplessness scale; IES breast cancer distress).
[Analysis 1.8]
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 8 decision conflict (proportion with lower scores).
[Analysis 1.9]
Analysis 1.9. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 9 decision conflict.
[Analysis 1.10]
Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 10 satisfaction with decision.
[Analysis 1.11]
Analysis 1.11. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 11 intention to take screening test.
[Analysis 1.12]
Analysis 1.12. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 12 intention to take genetic screening test in normal risk patients.
[Analysis 1.13]
Analysis 1.13. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 13 intention to take genetic screening test in normal risk patients.
[Analysis 1.14]
Analysis 1.14. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 14 uptake of screening test.
[Analysis 1.15]
Analysis 1.15. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 15 uptake of screening test.
[Analysis 1.16]
Analysis 1.16. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 16 appropriate use of cholesterol test.
[Analysis 1.17]
Analysis 1.17. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 17 improvement in risk comprehension/perception.
[Analysis 1.18]
Analysis 1.18. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 18 stages of change.
[Analysis 1.19]
Analysis 1.19. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 19 making a recommended behaviour change.
[Analysis 1.20]
Analysis 1.20. Comparison 1 personalised risk communication versus general risk information, Outcome 20 Quality of life (SF-36).
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for PAP SMEARS, Outcome 1 intention to take screening test.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for PAP SMEARS, Outcome 2 uptake of screening test.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for MAMMOGRAPHY, Outcome 1 knowledge regarding screening test / condition concerned.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for MAMMOGRAPHY, Outcome 2 accuracy of perceived risk.
[Analysis 3.3]
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for MAMMOGRAPHY, Outcome 3 anxiety (Cancer related anxiety and helplessness scale; IES breast cancer distress).
[Analysis 3.4]
Analysis 3.4. Comparison 3 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for MAMMOGRAPHY, Outcome 4 intention to take screening test.
[Analysis 3.5]
Analysis 3.5. Comparison 3 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for MAMMOGRAPHY, Outcome 5 uptake of screening test.
[Analysis 3.6]
Analysis 3.6. Comparison 3 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for MAMMOGRAPHY, Outcome 6 uptake of screening test.
[Analysis 3.7]
Analysis 3.7. Comparison 3 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for MAMMOGRAPHY, Outcome 7 uptake of screening test.
[Analysis 3.8]
Analysis 3.8. Comparison 3 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for MAMMOGRAPHY, Outcome 8 stages of change.
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for CHOLESTEROL TESTS, Outcome 1 uptake of screening test.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for CHOLESTEROL TESTS, Outcome 2 appropriate use of cholesterol test.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for 'HIGH RISK' PEOPLE, Outcome 1 knowledge regarding screening test / condition concerned.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for 'HIGH RISK' PEOPLE, Outcome 2 perceived risk - perceiving self as appropriate candidate for test.
[Analysis 5.3]
Analysis 5.3. Comparison 5 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for 'HIGH RISK' PEOPLE, Outcome 3 accurately perceived risk.
[Analysis 5.4]
Analysis 5.4. Comparison 5 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for 'HIGH RISK' PEOPLE, Outcome 4 anxiety (Cancer related anxiety and helplessness scale; IES breast cancer distress).
[Analysis 5.5]
Analysis 5.5. Comparison 5 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for 'HIGH RISK' PEOPLE, Outcome 5 intention to take screening test.
[Analysis 5.6]
Analysis 5.6. Comparison 5 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for 'HIGH RISK' PEOPLE, Outcome 6 uptake of screening test.
[Analysis 5.7]
Analysis 5.7. Comparison 5 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for 'HIGH RISK' PEOPLE, Outcome 7 uptake of screening test.
[Analysis 5.8]
Analysis 5.8. Comparison 5 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for 'HIGH RISK' PEOPLE, Outcome 8 stages of change.
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for COLORECTAL SCREENING, Outcome 1 Informed decision.
[Analysis 6.2]
Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for COLORECTAL SCREENING, Outcome 2 knowledge regarding screening test / condition concerned.
[Analysis 6.3]
Analysis 6.3. Comparison 6 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for COLORECTAL SCREENING, Outcome 3 knowledge regarding screening test / condition concerned.
[Analysis 6.4]
Analysis 6.4. Comparison 6 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for COLORECTAL SCREENING, Outcome 4 anxiety (Cancer related anxiety and helplessness scale; IES breast cancer distress).
[Analysis 6.5]
Analysis 6.5. Comparison 6 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for COLORECTAL SCREENING, Outcome 5 satisfaction with decision.
[Analysis 6.6]
Analysis 6.6. Comparison 6 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for COLORECTAL SCREENING, Outcome 6 Decision conflict (proportion with low scores).
[Analysis 6.7]
Analysis 6.7. Comparison 6 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for COLORECTAL SCREENING, Outcome 7 intention to take screening test.
[Analysis 6.8]
Analysis 6.8. Comparison 6 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for COLORECTAL SCREENING, Outcome 8 uptake of screening test.
[Analysis 6.9]
Analysis 6.9. Comparison 6 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for COLORECTAL SCREENING, Outcome 9 stages of change.
[Analysis 7.1]
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 personalised risk communication versus general risk information for PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING, Outcome 1 uptake of screening test.
[Analysis 8.1]
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 Personalised risk communication versus general risk information for SKIN CANCER SCREENING, Outcome 1 knowledge regarding screening test / condition concerned (Generic Inverse Variance).
[Analysis 8.2]
Analysis 8.2. Comparison 8 Personalised risk communication versus general risk information for SKIN CANCER SCREENING, Outcome 2 intention to take screening test.
[Analysis 8.3]
Analysis 8.3. Comparison 8 Personalised risk communication versus general risk information for SKIN CANCER SCREENING, Outcome 3 uptake of screening test.
[Analysis 9.1]
Analysis 9.1. Comparison 9 Personalised risk communication versus general risk information for PRENATAL TESTING FOR FOETAL ABNORMALITY, Outcome 1 Informed decision.
[Analysis 9.2]
Analysis 9.2. Comparison 9 Personalised risk communication versus general risk information for PRENATAL TESTING FOR FOETAL ABNORMALITY, Outcome 2 knowledge regarding screening test / condition concerned.
[Analysis 9.3]
Analysis 9.3. Comparison 9 Personalised risk communication versus general risk information for PRENATAL TESTING FOR FOETAL ABNORMALITY, Outcome 3 uptake of screening test.
[Analysis 9.4]
Analysis 9.4. Comparison 9 Personalised risk communication versus general risk information for PRENATAL TESTING FOR FOETAL ABNORMALITY, Outcome 4 anxiety.
[Analysis 9.5]
Analysis 9.5. Comparison 9 Personalised risk communication versus general risk information for PRENATAL TESTING FOR FOETAL ABNORMALITY, Outcome 5 decision conflict.