METHOD: The study applied a quantitative approach based on the cross-sectional survey design and multistage cluster random sampling. A total of 400 women aged 35-69 years, were surveyed at 4 obstetric and gynecologic clinics affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences in Tehran: the participation levels of 86 women who have had a mammogram were analyzed based on their self-efficacy, belief, social influence, and barriers concerning mammography utilization.
RESULTS: Consistent with the study framework, in bivariate analysis, the higher level of women's participation in breast cancer prevention programs was significantly related to more positive belief about mammography (p< .05), greater social influence on mammography (p< .01) and fewer barriers to mammography (p< .01). Self efficacy (p= .114) was not significantly related to the higher level of participation.
CONCLUSION: Results suggest that women's participation levels in breast cancer prevention programs might be associated with the specific psychosocial factors on breast cancer preventive behavior such as mammography screening.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted individual in-depth interviews with people with type 2 diabetes who were making decisions about insulin treatment. Participants were selected purposively to achieve maximum variation. A semi-structured topic guide was used to guide the interviews which were audio-recorded and analysed using a thematic approach. We interviewed 21 participants between January 2011 and March 2012. The age range of participants was 28-67 years old. Our sample comprised 9 women and 12 men. Three main themes, 'treatment-specific values', 'life goals and philosophies', and 'personal and social background', emerged from the analysis. The patients reported a variety of insulin-specific values, which were negative and/or positive beliefs about insulin. They framed insulin according to their priorities and philosophies in life. Patients' decisions were influenced by sociocultural (e.g. religious background) and personal backgrounds (e.g. family situations).
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the need for expanding the current concept of patient values in medical decision making. Clinicians should address more than just values related to treatment options. Patient values should include patients' priorities, life philosophy and their background. Current decision support tools, such as patient decision aids, should consider these new dimensions when clarifying patient values.
METHODS: We reviewed measures of decision quality and decision process in 86 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration systematic review of PtDAs. Data on development of the measures, reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, feasibility, and acceptability were independently abstracted by 2 reviewers.
RESULTS: Information from 178 instances of use of measures was abstracted. Very few studies reported data on the performance of measures, with reliability (21%) and validity (16%) being the most common. Studies using new measures were less likely to include information about their psychometric performance. The review was limited to reporting of measures in studies included in the Cochrane review and did not consult prior publications.
CONCLUSIONS: Very little is reported about the development or performance of measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of PtDAs in published trials. Minimum reporting standards are proposed to enable authors to prepare study reports, editors and reviewers to evaluate submitted papers, and readers to appraise published studies.