IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v58y2004i9p1699-1707.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Women's preferences for and views on decision-making for diagnostic tests

Author

Listed:
  • Davey, Heather M
  • Lim, Jacqueline
  • Butow, Phyllis N
  • Barratt, Alexandra L
  • Redman, Sally

Abstract

It is unclear whether the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) provides a suitable framework for eliciting women's preferences for involvement in decision-making about diagnostic tests. The aims of this study were to assess the appropriateness of the role label approach for eliciting preferences for decision-making about diagnostic tests and to elicit women's preferences for, and views about, decision-making for diagnostic tests. In-depth, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 37 women who had previously participated in a population-based telephone survey. Analysis of the interview transcripts revealed that qualitative questions may be a more sensitive methodology for eliciting preferences than the role label approach as exemplified by the CPS. The analysis identified a number of issues associated with decision-making for diagnostic tests, including defining what a decision is, the rationale for the preference and factors that influence the preferred role such as the perceived seriousness of the test and potential outcomes. The role label approach used to elicit preferences for involvement in decision-making may be too simplistic. It may not fully capture the complexity of women's thoughts about test decision-making, including how they define a decision and what factors affect their preference.

Suggested Citation

  • Davey, Heather M & Lim, Jacqueline & Butow, Phyllis N & Barratt, Alexandra L & Redman, Sally, 2004. "Women's preferences for and views on decision-making for diagnostic tests," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(9), pages 1699-1707, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:58:y:2004:i:9:p:1699-1707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(03)00339-3
    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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Smith, Sian K. & Dixon, Ann & Trevena, Lyndal & Nutbeam, Don & McCaffery, Kirsten J., 2009. "Exploring patient involvement in healthcare decision making across different education and functional health literacy groups," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1805-1812, December.
    4. Entwistle, Vikki & Prior, Maria & Skea, Zoe C. & Francis, Jillian J., 2008. "Involvement in treatment decision-making: Its meaning to people with diabetes and implications for conceptualisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 362-375, January.

    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:58:y:2004:i:9:p:1699-1707. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.