Literature DB >> 11230068

Women's understanding of a "normal smear test result": experimental questionnaire based study.

T M Marteau1, V Senior, P Sasieni.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe women's understanding of a negative smear test result when presented using the term "normal smear result," as required by the NHS cervical screening programme, and to evaluate the impact on understanding of different ways of presenting the residual risk inherent in such a result.
DESIGN: Experimental questionnaire based study.
INTERVENTIONS: Participants were asked to imagine that they had received a normal smear result. The meaning of this result was then presented using different combinations of three different expressions of residual risk of having or developing cervical cancer over the next five years: a verbal probability of absolute risk (low risk), a numerical probability of absolute risk (1 in 5000), or a numerical probability of risk relative to an unscreened woman (five times lower). PARTICIPANTS: 1027 women aged 20 to 64.
RESULTS: When informed only that their smear result was normal, 52% (80 of 153 women) of participants correctly understood that this entailed a residual risk of cervical cancer, compared with 70% (107 of 152) given the additional sentence explaining the meaning of a normal smear result using a verbal probability of absolute risk (difference 18%; 95% confidence interval 7% to 29%). Additionally, explaining the results using a numerical probability of absolute or relative risk did not increase the proportion who correctly understood that there was a residual risk of cervical cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: NHS policy for reporting normal smears needs to change to make it a definite requirement that the reporting of a "normal smear result" is accompanied by a sentence stating that this means a low risk for having or developing cervical cancer in the next five years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11230068      PMCID: PMC26558          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.322.7285.526

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  5 in total

1.  Numbers or words? A randomized controlled trial of presenting screen negative results to pregnant women.

Authors:  T M Marteau; G Saidi; S Goodburn; J Lawton; S Michie; M Bobrow
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.050

2.  Communicating risk. Use of standard terms is unlikely to result in standard communication.

Authors:  A Edwards; R Pill; N Stott
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-12-07

Review 3.  Presenting risk information--a review of the effects of "framing" and other manipulations on patient outcomes.

Authors:  A Edwards; G Elwyn; J Covey; E Matthews; R Pill
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2001 Jan-Mar

4.  Psychological consequences for parents of false negative results on prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: retrospective interview study.

Authors:  S Hall; M Bobrow; T M Marteau
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-02-12

Review 5.  False-negative results in screening programmes: systematic review of impact and implications.

Authors:  M P Petticrew; A J Sowden; D Lister-Sharp; K Wright
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.014

  5 in total
  13 in total

1.  Screening for cardiovascular risk: public health imperative or matter for individual informed choice?

Authors:  Theresa M Marteau; Ann Louise Kinmonth
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-07-13

2.  Informed decision-making based on a leaflet in the context of prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Tessa Dierks; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Ida J Korfage; Monique J Roobol; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2019-04-13

3.  Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: experimental study.

Authors:  Ros Bramwell; Helen West; Peter Salmon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-07-13

4.  Effect of communication strategy on personal risk perception and treatment adherence intentions.

Authors:  Sean Young; Daniel M Oppenheimer
Journal:  Psychol Health Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.423

5.  Psychological impact of human papillomavirus testing in women with borderline or mildly dyskaryotic cervical smear test results: cross sectional questionnaire study.

Authors:  Esther Maissi; Theresa M Marteau; Matthew Hankins; Sue Moss; Rosa Legood; Alastair Gray
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-05-29

6.  A comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional Papanicolaou smears in cervical dysplasia diagnosis.

Authors:  Fatemeh Haghighi; Nahid Ghanbarzadeh; Marziee Ataee; Gholamreza Sharifzadeh; Javid Shahbazi Mojarrad; Fatemeh Najafi-Semnani
Journal:  Adv Biomed Res       Date:  2016-10-26

7.  Understanding of a negative bowel screening result and potential impact on future symptom appraisal and help-seeking behaviour: a focus group study.

Authors:  Karen N Barnett; David Weller; Steve Smith; Sheina Orbell; Peter Vedsted; Robert J C Steele; Jane W Melia; Sue M Moss; Julietta Patnick; Christine Campbell
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Are people with negative diabetes screening tests falsely reassured? Parallel group cohort study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Charlotte A M Paddison; Helen C Eborall; Stephen Sutton; David P French; Joana Vasconcelos; A Toby Prevost; Ann-Louise Kinmonth; Simon J Griffin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-11-30

9.  Psychological costs of inadequate cervical smear test results.

Authors:  D P French; E Maissi; T M Marteau
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-11-29       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Interpretations of education about gene-environment influences on health in rural Ethiopia: the context of a neglected tropical disease.

Authors:  Abebayehu Tora; Desta Ayode; Getnet Tadele; David Farrell; Gail Davey; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Int Health       Date:  2016-04-24       Impact factor: 2.473

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.