Gianfranco Domenighetti1, Roberto Grilli, Jenny Rose Maggi. 1. Visiting Professor of Health Economics, Universities of Lausanne and Geneva, Switzerland; Director of Sezione Sanitaria, Dipartimento delle Opere Sociali, 6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland; Unity of Clinical Policy Analysis, Laboratory of Health Service Research, Istituto Mario Negri, Milano, Italy; Institute of Social Psychology, University of Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the willingness of the general population to undergo a screening test of questionable effectiveness for pancreatic cancer is influenced by the quality and the extent of the information provided. DESIGN: Randomised study. SETTING: Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: Representative sample (N=1000) of the general population aged over 20. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated into two groups (N=500 each), with one group to receive basic and the other extended quality of information. The information was presented in two hypothetical scenarios about implicit and explicit benefits and adverse events of the screening test. Response rates were, respectively, 80.2% (N=401) and 93.2% (N=466). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stated willingness to undergo the screening test. RESULTS: Out of the 401 participants receiving the basic information scenario, 241 (60%) stated their willingness to accept the test, as compared to the 63/466 (13.5%) exposed to the extended one (P < 0.001). After adjusting for respondent characteristics through a logistic regression model, the 'information effect', expressed in terms of odds-ratio (OR), shows that provision of additional information was related to a 91% (OR 0.09; 95CI: 0.07 - 0.13) relative reduction in the likelihood of accepting the screening test. CONCLUSION: The quality and the extent of the information provided about the implicit and explicit benefits and adverse events on hypothetical scenarios of a screening test may dramatically change the willingness of people to participate in the testing. This study suggests that provision of full information on the yield of health care interventions plays an important role in protecting the public from being exposed to procedures of questionable effectiveness.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the willingness of the general population to undergo a screening test of questionable effectiveness for pancreatic cancer is influenced by the quality and the extent of the information provided. DESIGN: Randomised study. SETTING: Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: Representative sample (N=1000) of the general population aged over 20. INTERVENTIONS:Participants were randomly allocated into two groups (N=500 each), with one group to receive basic and the other extended quality of information. The information was presented in two hypothetical scenarios about implicit and explicit benefits and adverse events of the screening test. Response rates were, respectively, 80.2% (N=401) and 93.2% (N=466). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stated willingness to undergo the screening test. RESULTS: Out of the 401 participants receiving the basic information scenario, 241 (60%) stated their willingness to accept the test, as compared to the 63/466 (13.5%) exposed to the extended one (P < 0.001). After adjusting for respondent characteristics through a logistic regression model, the 'information effect', expressed in terms of odds-ratio (OR), shows that provision of additional information was related to a 91% (OR 0.09; 95CI: 0.07 - 0.13) relative reduction in the likelihood of accepting the screening test. CONCLUSION: The quality and the extent of the information provided about the implicit and explicit benefits and adverse events on hypothetical scenarios of a screening test may dramatically change the willingness of people to participate in the testing. This study suggests that provision of full information on the yield of health care interventions plays an important role in protecting the public from being exposed to procedures of questionable effectiveness.
Authors: G Domenighetti; P Luraschi; A Casabianca; F Gutzwiller; A Spinelli; E Pedrinis; F Repetto Journal: Lancet Date: 1988 Dec 24-31 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Caroline Bähler; Beat Brüngger; Agne Ulyte; Matthias Schwenkglenks; Viktor von Wyl; Holger Dressel; Oliver Gruebner; Wenjia Wei; Eva Blozik Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Eleanor Mann; A Toby Prevost; Simon Griffin; Ian Kellar; Stephen Sutton; Michael Parker; Simon Sanderson; Ann Louise Kinmonth; Theresa M Marteau Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-02-20 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Shaun Treweek; Andrew D Oxman; Philip Alderson; Patrick M Bossuyt; Linn Brandt; Jan Brożek; Marina Davoli; Signe Flottorp; Robin Harbour; Suzanne Hill; Alessandro Liberati; Helena Liira; Holger J Schünemann; Sarah Rosenbaum; Judith Thornton; Per Olav Vandvik; Pablo Alonso-Coello Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 7.327