Literature DB >> 33846214

Effects of Message Framing on Cervical Cancer Screening Knowledge and Intentions Related to Primary HPV Testing.

Shannon N Ogden1, Emily A Leskinen2, Elizabeth A Sarma3, Jocelyn V Wainwright4, Katharine A Rendle5,6,7.   

Abstract

Numerous national guidelines now include primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as a recommended screening option for cervical cancer in the United States yet little is known regarding screening intentions for this specific screening strategy or interventions that may increase uptake. Gain- and loss-framed messaging can positively impact health behaviors; however, there is mixed evidence on which is more effective for cervical cancer screening, with no published evidence examining HPV testing. To help address this gap, this study compared the effects of message framing on screening knowledge and intentions related to primary HPV testing. We randomized females aged 21-65 (n = 365) to receive brief messaging about cervical cancer screening with either gain- or loss-framing. In January-February 2020, participants completed pretest and posttest measures evaluating cervical cancer knowledge, beliefs, and intentions to be screened using HPV testing. We used generalized estimating equations to model message and framing effects on screening outcomes, controlling for age, education, race, and baseline measures. In comparison to pretest, messaging significantly increased HPV-related screening intentions [adjusted OR (aOR): 2.4 (1-3.5)] and knowledge [aOR: 1.7 (1.2-2.4)], perceived effectiveness of HPV testing [aOR: 4.3 (2.8-6.5)], and preference for primary HPV screening [aOR: 3.2 (1.2-8.5)], regardless of message framing. For all outcomes, no significant interaction by message framing was observed. Brief public health messaging positively impacted HPV-related screening intentions, knowledge, and beliefs, independent of message framing. In conjunction with other strategies, these results suggest that messaging could be an effective tool to increase uptake of primary HPV testing. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Primary HPV tests are more sensitive and offer greater reassurance than Pap tests alone yet use for routine cervical cancer screening remains low. Brief public health messaging can positively impact awareness, knowledge, and screening intention regarding primary HPV testing. Messaging campaigns paired with other strategies can increase uptake across populations.See related Spotlight, p. 823. ©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33846214      PMCID: PMC8416706          DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-20-0622

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)        ISSN: 1940-6215


  17 in total

Review 1.  Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: a meta-analytic review.

Authors:  Kristel M Gallagher; John A Updegraff
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2012-02

2.  Emphasizing the losses or the gains: Comparing situational and individual moderators of framed messages to promote fruit and vegetable intake.

Authors:  Cristina A Godinho; Maria-João Alvarez; Maria Luísa Lima
Journal:  Appetite       Date:  2015-10-09       Impact factor: 3.868

3.  Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk.

Authors:  Eyal Peer; Joachim Vosgerau; Alessandro Acquisti
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2014-12

Review 4.  Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing.

Authors:  A J Rothman; P Salovey
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 17.737

5.  Targeting and tailoring message-framing: the moderating effect of racial identity on receptivity to colorectal cancer screening among African-Americans.

Authors:  Todd Lucas; Mark Manning; Lenwood W Hayman; James Blessman
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2018-06-07

6.  Using the Theory of Planned Behavior to Understand Cervical Cancer Screening Among Latinas.

Authors:  Angelica M Roncancio; Kristy K Ward; Ingrid A Sanchez; Miguel A Cano; Theresa L Byrd; Sally W Vernon; Maria Eugenia Fernandez-Esquer; Maria E Fernandez
Journal:  Health Educ Behav       Date:  2015-02-22

7.  Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Authors:  Susan J Curry; Alex H Krist; Douglas K Owens; Michael J Barry; Aaron B Caughey; Karina W Davidson; Chyke A Doubeni; John W Epling; Alex R Kemper; Martha Kubik; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Maureen G Phipps; Michael Silverstein; Melissa A Simon; Chien-Wen Tseng; John B Wong
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Reassurance against future risk of precancer and cancer conferred by a negative human papillomavirus test.

Authors:  Julia C Gage; Mark Schiffman; Hormuzd A Katki; Philip E Castle; Barbara Fetterman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Nancy E Poitras; Thomas Lorey; Li C Cheung; Walter K Kinney
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-07-18       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

Authors:  Elizabeth T H Fontham; Andrew M D Wolf; Timothy R Church; Ruth Etzioni; Christopher R Flowers; Abbe Herzig; Carmen E Guerra; Kevin C Oeffinger; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Louise C Walter; Jane J Kim; Kimberly S Andrews; Carol E DeSantis; Stacey A Fedewa; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Debbie Saslow; Richard C Wender; Robert A Smith
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 508.702

10.  Correlates of women's intentions to be screened for human papillomavirus for cervical cancer screening with an extended interval.

Authors:  Gina S Ogilvie; Laurie W Smith; Dirk van Niekerk; Fareeza Khurshed; Heather N Pedersen; Darlene Taylor; Katharine Thomson; Sandra B Greene; Suzanne M Babich; Eduardo L Franco; Andrew J Coldman
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.