The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A measure of informed choice
Open accessAbstract
Objective To develop a measure of informed choice. Conceptualization and measurement The measure is based on the following definition of an informed choice: one that is based on relevant knowledge, consistent with the decision‐maker’s values and behaviourally implemented. The measure comprises an eight‐item scale of knowledge, a four‐item scale assessing attitudes towards undergoing the screening test and a record of test uptake. Participants Sixty‐six women awaiting their first antenatal clinic appointments. Measure development In women offered a screening test in pregnancy, the internal reliability of both the knowledge and the attitude scales was acceptable (alpha coefficients 0.82 and 0.83, respectively). Of the 42 women completing both scales, 18 were classified as having made an informed choice, and 24 were classified as having made an uninformed choice. Conclusion The results of this preliminary study provide some evidence to support the feasibility of conceptualizing and measuring informed choices regarding screening using a brief measure assessing knowledge and attitudes. The validity and utility of this approach awaits further studies, involving larger numbers of participants, offered different screening tests.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Cited by
Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review
Green, J., Hewison, J., Bekker, H., Bryant, L., & Cuckle, H. (2004) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta8330 · Cited by 368
Patient involvement in treatment decision-making: The case for a broader conceptual framework
Entwistle, V. A., & Watt, I. S. (2006) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2006.05.002 · Cited by 314
The Concept of eHealth Literacy and Its Measurement: German Translation of the eHEALS
Soellner, R., Huber, S., & Reder, M. (2014) · Journal of Media Psychology · doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000104 · Cited by 184
Information provision for people with multiple sclerosis
Köpke, S., Solari, A., Khan, F., Heesen, C., & Giordano, A. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008757.pub2 · Cited by 118
A systematic review of effectiveness of decision aids to assist older patients at the end of life
Cardona-Morrell, M., Benfatti-Olivato, G., Jansen, J., Turner, R. M., Fajardo-Pulido, D., & Hillman, K. (2017) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2016.10.007 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Marteau, T. M., Dormandy, E., & Michie, S.
- Venue
- Health Expectations
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-06-25
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 99-108
- ISSN
- 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
- 1369-7625
- OpenAlex
- W2082430649
- Cited by
- 776
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A measure of informed choice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00140.x
- The paper
- Marteau, T. M., Dormandy, E., & Michie, S. (2001). A measure of informed choice. Health Expectations. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00140.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
