Randomised controlled trial of the effect of evidence based information on women's willingness to participate in cervical cancer screening
Randomised controlled trial of the effect of evidence based information on women's willingness to participate in cervical cancer screening
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/jech.57.8.589
复制
发表时间：
2003-08-01
影响因子：
6.3
通讯作者：
Bhangoo, N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Adab, P;Marshall, T;Bhangoo, N
研究目的：评估与NHS目前提供的信息相比，为妇女提供更多关于筛查利弊的信息是否会影响她们参加筛查的意愿。设计：随机对照试验。参与者被随机分配到对照组(基于目前使用的国民健康保险宫颈筛查计划传单)或干预传单(包含有关风险和不确定性的更多信息)。地点：伯明翰的三个一般做法。参与者：在一个月的时间里参加这些做法的300名20岁到。主要观察指标：参加筛查的意向。主要结果：283名女性(94.3%)完成了研究。干预组(79%)比对照组(88%)在阅读信息传单后表示愿意进行筛查的女性更少(组间差异9.2%，95%可信区间(CI)3.2%至21.7%)。粗优势比(OR)和95%可信区间(CI)分别为0.50(0.26~0.97)。在调整其他因素后，这一趋势仍然存在(OR为0.60，95%CI为0.28至1.29)。既往有巴氏涂片检查是唯一有意义的筛查意向预测因素(调整后的OR2.54，95%CI为1.03至6.21)。亚组分析显示，宫颈癌高危和低危女性之间的意向摄取没有干预效果(p=0.59)。结论：为女性提供关于筛查的风险、不确定性和益处的循证信息，可能会阻止一些，但不会区别于高危女性。
Study objectives: To assess whether providing women with additional information on the pros and cons of screening, compared with information currently offered by the NHS, affects their intention to attend for screening.Design: Randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the control, ( based on an NHS Cervical Screening Programme leaflet currently used), or the intervention leaflet ( containing additional information on risks and uncertainties).Setting: Three general practices in Birmingham.Participants: 300 women aged 20 to 64 attending the practices during a one month period.Main outcome measures: Intention to attend for screening.Main results: 283 women (94.3%) completed the study. Fewer women in the intervention (79%) than the control group (88%) expressed intention to have screening after reading the information leaflet ( difference between groups 9.2%, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 3.2% to 21.7%). The crude odds ratio ( OR) and 95% CI was 0.50 (0.26 to 0.97). After adjusting for other factors, the trend persisted ( OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.29). Having a previous Pap smear was the only significant predictor of intention to have screening ( adjusted OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.21). Subgroup analysis showed no intervention effect in intended uptake between women at higher and lower risk of cervical cancer ( p= 0.59).Conclusions: Providing women with evidence based information on the risks, uncertainties, and the benefits of screening, is likely to deter some, but not differentially those at higher risk.