How Do Australians Manage Diagnostic Testing Risks? Focus Groups Linked to a Model of Behaviour Change

IF 3 3区医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Health Expectations Pub Date : 2024-10-02 DOI:10.1111/hex.70038

Tomas Rozbroj, Catriona Parker, Romi Haas, Jason A. Wallis, Rachelle Buchbinder, Denise A. O'Connor

{"title":"How Do Australians Manage Diagnostic Testing Risks? Focus Groups Linked to a Model of Behaviour Change","authors":"Tomas Rozbroj, Catriona Parker, Romi Haas, Jason A. Wallis, Rachelle Buchbinder, Denise A. O'Connor","doi":"10.1111/hex.70038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Diagnostic tests carry significant risks, and communications are needed to help lay people consider these. The development of communications has been hindered by poor knowledge about how lay people understand and negotiate testing risks. We examined lay Australians' perceptions of diagnostic testing risks and how these risks are managed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>We completed 12 semistructured online focus groups with 61 Australian adults (18+) between April and June 2022. Participants were divided into younger/older (> 50 years) and male/female groups. Using semistructured discussion and exploring two hypothetical scenarios, we examined attitudes to diagnostic tests, their risks and how test risks were managed. Themes were identified, subanalysed to identify age and gender differences and mapped to the COM-B model of behaviour change.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The six themes provided detailed accounts of how participants considered themselves able, empowered and assertive when negotiating testing risks and of complex ways in which relationships with health workers, personal experiences and structural factors influenced negotiating testing risks. COM-B identified multiple opportunities for leveraging these lay beliefs in health promotion. It also identified barriers, including narrow concepts of testing risks, challenges during shared decision-making and overestimation of personal influence on testing decisions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Significance</h3>\n \n <p>Our findings matter because they are a novel, detailed account of testing risk beliefs, linked to a model for behaviour change. This will directly inform development of test risk/benefit communications, which are a research priority.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>The study design enabled participants to influence the discussion agenda, and they could comment on the analysis. Participants contributed insights about their needs, beliefs and experiences related to medical testing, and these will be used to shape future patient-centred decision tools.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"27 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11447086/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70038","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Diagnostic tests carry significant risks, and communications are needed to help lay people consider these. The development of communications has been hindered by poor knowledge about how lay people understand and negotiate testing risks. We examined lay Australians' perceptions of diagnostic testing risks and how these risks are managed.

Method

We completed 12 semistructured online focus groups with 61 Australian adults (18+) between April and June 2022. Participants were divided into younger/older (> 50 years) and male/female groups. Using semistructured discussion and exploring two hypothetical scenarios, we examined attitudes to diagnostic tests, their risks and how test risks were managed. Themes were identified, subanalysed to identify age and gender differences and mapped to the COM-B model of behaviour change.

Results

The six themes provided detailed accounts of how participants considered themselves able, empowered and assertive when negotiating testing risks and of complex ways in which relationships with health workers, personal experiences and structural factors influenced negotiating testing risks. COM-B identified multiple opportunities for leveraging these lay beliefs in health promotion. It also identified barriers, including narrow concepts of testing risks, challenges during shared decision-making and overestimation of personal influence on testing decisions.

Significance

Our findings matter because they are a novel, detailed account of testing risk beliefs, linked to a model for behaviour change. This will directly inform development of test risk/benefit communications, which are a research priority.

Public Contribution

The study design enabled participants to influence the discussion agenda, and they could comment on the analysis. Participants contributed insights about their needs, beliefs and experiences related to medical testing, and these will be used to shape future patient-centred decision tools.

查看原文本刊更多论文

澳大利亚人如何管理诊断检测风险？与行为改变模型相关的焦点小组。

背景：诊断检测具有很大的风险，需要进行沟通来帮助非专业人士考虑这些风险。由于对非专业人士如何理解和协商检验风险知之甚少，因此阻碍了宣传工作的开展。我们研究了非专业澳大利亚人对诊断检测风险的看法以及如何管理这些风险：2022年4月至6月期间，我们与61名澳大利亚成年人（18岁以上）完成了12个半结构化在线焦点小组。参与者分为年轻组/年长组（大于 50 岁）和男性组/女性组。通过半结构化讨论和探讨两种假设情景，我们考察了人们对诊断测试的态度、测试风险以及如何管理测试风险。我们确定了主题，对其进行了子分析，以确定年龄和性别差异，并将其映射到行为改变的 COM-B 模型中：结果：六个主题详细说明了参与者在协商检测风险时如何认为自己有能力、有权力和有主见，以及与卫生工作者的关系、个人经历和结构性因素对协商检测风险产生影响的复杂方式。COM-B 确定了在健康促进中利用这些非专业信仰的多种机会。它还发现了一些障碍，包括对检测风险的狭隘概念、共同决策过程中的挑战以及高估个人对检测决策的影响：我们的研究结果很重要，因为它们是对检验风险信念的新颖、详细的描述，并与行为改变模型相联系。这将直接为检测风险/益处沟通的发展提供信息，而这正是研究的重点：研究设计使参与者能够影响讨论议程，并对分析结果发表意见。参与者对他们在医学检验方面的需求、信念和经验提出了自己的见解，这些见解将被用于打造未来以患者为中心的决策工具。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

9.40%

发文量

251

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.