Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18494957›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2008

Information needs and preferences of low and high literacy consumers for decisions about colorectal cancer screening: utilizing a linguistic model.

Sian K Smith, Lyndal Trevena, Don Nutbeam, Alexandra Barratt, Kirsten J McCaffery

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00765869 (A Randomised Controlled Trial of a Bowel Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Adults With Low Education and Literacy), which is not on this map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00765869 naunknown statusnot on this map

A Randomised Controlled Trial of a Bowel Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Adults With Low Education and Literacy

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of SydneyRan2008 to 2009Enrolled555ConditionsColorectal NeoplasmsArmsBowel cancer screening decision aid, Australian Government Bowel Cancer Screening booklet
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Information Needs of People With Limited Health Literacy Regarding a New "Opt-Out" Organ Donation System: A Qualitative Study in the Netherlands.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. How do people interpret information about colorectal cancer screening: observations from a think-aloud study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sian K SmithScreening and Test Evaluation Program, Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. sians@health.usyd.edu.au
Lyndal Trevena
Don Nutbeam
Alexandra Barratt
Kirsten J McCaffery
Faculty of Public Health · GBNew South Wales Department of Health · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThe use of written decision aids (DAs) in clinical practice has proliferated. However, few DAs have been developed for low literacy users, despite this group having low knowledge about healthcare and lacking involvement in health decisions.

objectiveTo explore the information needs and understanding of adults with varying literacy in relation to colorectal cancer screening, and to consider their responses to two versions of a decision aid. Participants Thirty-three men and women aged 45-74 years were recruited from Adult Basic Education classes (n = 17) and University Continuing Education programs (n = 16).

methodsWe used qualitative methods (in-depth, semi-structured interviews) to compare and contrast the views of adults with lower and higher literacy levels, to gain a better understanding of how people with lower literacy value and interpret specific DA content and components; and determine whether needs and preferences are specific to lower literacy groups or generic across the broad literacy spectrum.

resultsRegardless of literacy perspective, participants' interpretations of the DA were shaped by their prior knowledge and expectations, as well as their values and preferences. This influenced perceptions of the DAs role in supporting informed decision making. A linguistic theoretical model was applied to interpret the findings. This facilitated considerations beyond the traditional focus on the readability of materials.

conclusionDecision aids developers may find it useful to apply alternative approaches (linguistic) when creating DAs for consumers of varying literacy.

Indexed as

ComprehensionDecision Support TechniquesEducational StatusAgedAudiovisual AidsAustraliaColorectal NeoplasmsDecision MakingFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInterviews as TopicLinguisticsMaleMiddle AgedModels, Theoretical

Identifiers

PMID18494957
PMCPMC5060436
OpenAlexW2156195316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.