Literature DB >> 21501350

Responses to procedural information about colorectal cancer screening using faecal occult blood testing: the role of consideration of future consequences.

Christian von Wagner1, Anna Good, Samuel G Smith, Jane Wardle.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation is low despite its effectiveness in reducing CRC mortality. Identifying benefits and barriers requires consideration of specific characteristics of screening modalities. AIMS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS: To monitor the impact of providing information about CRC screening via faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) on intentions to participate. To investigate moderation by individual differences in consideration of future consequences (CFC). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 211 healthy adults (aged 45-59) with no experience of CRC screening were presented with eight consecutive statements about FOBt-based screening in a web survey. Participants completed measures of i) intention (after each statement), ii) CFC and iii) the importance of screening practicalities (e.g. unpleasantness of completing the test) and benefits (e.g. early detection of cancer).
RESULTS: An 8 (information)×2 (CFC) mixed ancova showed that intentions varied across the eight statements. (P<0.001): increasing after information about FOBt being completed at home (P<0.001) before subsequently decreasing after information about the requirement to collect faecal samples (P<0.001) in a plastic tub (P<0.01) on three occasions (P<0.01) with the low CFC group generally being less inclined to complete the test (P<0.01). Two between-group anovas demonstrated that the low CFC group attributed greater importance to practicalities of screening than the high CFC group while the opposite was found for the importance of benefits (both P's<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Deconstructing FOBt-based screening pointed to specific benefits and barriers which can advance research into public preferences of screening and educational materials.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21501350      PMCID: PMC5060610          DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00675.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  45 in total

1.  A randomised trial of the impact of new faecal haemoglobin test technologies on population participation in screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  S R Cole; G P Young; A Esterman; B Cadd; J Morcom
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.136

2.  Socioeconomic differences in attitudes and beliefs about healthy lifestyles.

Authors:  J Wardle; A Steptoe
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  Temporal framing and the decision to take part in type 2 diabetes screening: effects of individual differences in consideration of future consequences on persuasion.

Authors:  Sheina Orbell; Martin Hagger
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 4.267

4.  Colorectal cancer screening adherence is higher with fecal immunochemical tests than guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests: a randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; Susan Steel; Ellen F T Yee; Larry Massie; Ronald M Schrader; Glen H Murata
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2010-03-20       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  Psychosocial variables associated with colorectal cancer screening in South Australia.

Authors:  Stephen R Cole; Ian Zajac; Tess Gregory; Sarah Mehaffey; Naomi Roosa; Deborah Turnbull; Adrian Esterman; Graeme P Young
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2011-12

6.  Individual differences in sensitivity to health communications: consideration of future consequences.

Authors:  Sheina Orbell; Marco Perugini; Tim Rakow
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.267

7.  Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population.

Authors:  Leo G van Rossum; Anne F van Rijn; Robert J Laheij; Martijn G van Oijen; Paul Fockens; Han H van Krieken; Andre L Verbeek; Jan B Jansen; Evelien Dekker
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-03-25       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  The association between time perspective and alcohol consumption in university students: cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Jane Beenstock; Jean Adams; Martin White
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 3.367

9.  The impact of illustrations on public understanding of the aim of cancer screening.

Authors:  Hannah Brotherstone; Anne Miles; Kathryn A Robb; Wendy Atkin; Jane Wardle
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2006-09-29

10.  Social patterning of screening uptake and the impact of facilitating informed choices: psychological and ethical analyses.

Authors:  Rachel Crockett; Timothy M Wilkinson; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2007-06-28
View more
  17 in total

1.  The implications of patients and carers as active agents in health care and the consequences for their own health, the health of their families and health system.

Authors:  Jonathan Tritter
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Public attitudes towards genomic risk profiling as a component of routine population screening.

Authors:  S G Nicholls; B J Wilson; S M Craigie; H Etchegary; D Castle; J C Carroll; B K Potter; L Lemyre; J Little
Journal:  Genome       Date:  2013-08-31       Impact factor: 2.166

Review 3.  Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  S Wortley; G Wong; A Kieu; K Howard
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Attitudes and beliefs of non-participants in a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Nicola J Hall; Greg P Rubin; Christina Dobson; David Weller; Jane Wardle; Mary Ritchie; Colin J Rees
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-11-25       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  The development and testing of a brief ('gist-based') supplementary colorectal cancer screening information leaflet.

Authors:  Samuel G Smith; Michael S Wolf; Austin Obichere; Rosalind Raine; Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2013-08-20

Review 6.  Reducing inequities in colorectal cancer screening in North America.

Authors:  Kathleen M Decker; Harminder Singh
Journal:  J Carcinog       Date:  2014-11-14

7.  Blood RNA biomarker panel detects both left- and right-sided colorectal neoplasms: a case-control study.

Authors:  Samuel Chao; Jay Ying; Gailina Liew; Wayne Marshall; Choong-Chin Liew; Robert Burakoff
Journal:  J Exp Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2013-07-23

8.  The effect of information about overdetection of breast cancer on women's decision-making about mammography screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Jolyn Hersch; Alexandra Barratt; Jesse Jansen; Nehmat Houssami; Les Irwig; Gemma Jacklyn; Haryana Dhillon; Hazel Thornton; Kevin McGeechan; Kirsten Howard; Kirsten McCaffery
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Attitudes to incorporating genomic risk assessments into population screening programs: the importance of purpose, context and deliberation.

Authors:  Stuart G Nicholls; Holly Etchegary; June C Carroll; David Castle; Louise Lemyre; Beth K Potter; Samantha Craigie; Brenda J Wilson
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 3.063

10.  How do people interpret information about colorectal cancer screening: observations from a think-aloud study.

Authors:  Samuel G Smith; Gemma Vart; Michael S Wolf; Austin Obichere; Helen J Baker; Rosalind Raine; Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-08-05       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.