Cochrane · systematic review · CD001865
Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests
Edwards, AGK, Naik, G, Ahmed, H, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013 · Cochrane Library
Consumers and CommunicationAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
9
current version
GRADE rated
9
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 11.1%Low 3 · 33.3%Moderate 1 · 11.1%High 4 · 44.4%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Personalised risk communication versus general risk information for informed decision making about taking screening tests
Population: patients with informed decision making about taking screening tests
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Informed decision ‐ Numerical risk and categorised risk combined MMIC1 Personalised risk communication vs general risk information | OR 3.65 [2.13, 6.23] | 3 studies · 2444 participants | High |
Uptake of screening test ‐ Numerical and categorised risk combined Number of participants taking up the test Personalised risk communication vs general risk information | OR 1.15 [1.02, 1.29] | 12 studies · 6442 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness |
Personalised risk communication versus general risk information for informed decision making about taking screening tests
Population: patients with informed decision making about taking screening tests
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge regarding screening test/condition concerned ‐ calculated risk score (numerical) versus general information various continuous scales Personalised risk communication vs general risk information | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 588 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Knowledge regarding screening test/condition concerned ‐ calculated risk score (categorised) versus general information various continuous scales Personalised risk communication vs general risk information | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 260 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Knowledge regarding screening test/condition concerned ‐ personal risk factor list versus general information various continuous scales Personalised risk communication vs general risk information | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 838 participants | High |
Knowledge regarding screening test/condition concerned ‐ calculated risk score (numerical) versus general information proportion with good knowledge Personalised risk communication vs general risk information | OR 2.6 [1.27, 5.34] | 3 studies · 1413 participants | High |
Knowledge regarding screening test / condition concerned ‐ personal risk factor list v general information proportion with good knowledge Personalised risk communication vs general risk information | OR 7.13 [5.79, 8.79] | 2 studies · 2107 participants | High |
Accurately‐perceived risk proportion of participants who perceived risk accurately Personalised risk communication vs general risk information | OR 1.65 [0.96, 2.81] | 3 studies · 1264 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Anxiety ‐ all groups various continuous scales Personalised risk communication vs general risk information | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 1848 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |