English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  Risk stratification using genetic and other types of personal information could improve current best available approaches to ovarian cancer risk reduction, improving identification of women at increased risk of ovarian cancer and reducing unnecessary interventions for women at lower risk. Amounts of information given to women may influence key informed decision-related outcomes, e.g. knowledge. The primary aim of this study was to compare informed decision-related outcomes between women given one of two versions (gist vs. extended) of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management.    Methods  This was an experimental survey study comparing the effects of brief (gist) information with lengthier, more detailed (extended) information on cognitions relevant to informed decision-making about participating in risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Women with no personal history of ovarian cancer were recruited through an online survey company and randomised to view the gist ( n  = 512) or extended ( n  = 519) version of a website-based decision aid and completed an online survey. Primary outcomes were knowledge and intentions. Secondary outcomes included attitudes (values) and decisional conflict.    Results  There were no significant differences between the gist and extended conditions in knowledge about ovarian cancer (time*group interaction: F = 0.20,  p  = 0.66) or intention to participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment (t(1029) = 0.43,  p  = 0.67). There were also no between-groups differences in secondary outcomes. In the sample overall ( n  = 1031), knowledge about ovarian cancer increased from before to after exposure to the decision aid (from 5.71 to 6.77 out of a possible 10:  t  = 19.04,  p  < 0.001), and 74% of participants said that they would participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment.    Conclusions  No differences in knowledge or intentions were found between women who viewed the gist version and women who viewed the extended version of a decision aid about risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Knowledge increased for women in both decision aid groups. Further research is needed to determine the ideal volume and type of content for decision aids about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management.    Trial registrations  This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry; registration number:  ISRCTN48627877 .    Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-017-4889-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

bmc public health

Impact of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management on women’s knowledge and intentions: a randomised online experimental survey study