ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024
How Do Australians Manage Diagnostic Testing Risks? Focus Groups Linked to a Model of Behaviour Change.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Why Most Australians Consider It Valuable to Find Harmless Abnormalities with Diagnostic Tests: A Mixed-Methods Study.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic 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.
methodWe 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.
resultsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.