ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2012
Responses to procedural information about colorectal cancer screening using faecal occult blood testing: the role of consideration of future consequences.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments.The patient · 2014Pooled it
- Effect of information about the benefits and harms of mammography on women's decision making: The InforMa randomised controlled trial.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Factors influencing intention to participate in breast cancer screening. An exploratory structural model.PloS one · 2023Article
- Faecal immunochemical test for suspected colorectal cancer symptoms: patient survey of usability and acceptability.BJGP open · 2022Article
- Article
- Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Is Fecal Sampling from Multiple Sites Necessary?Cancers · 2019Article
- Uptake of the English Bowel (Colorectal) Cancer Screening Programme: an update 5 years after the full roll-out.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2018Article
- Biopsychosocial predictors of perceived life expectancy in a national sample of older men and women.PloS one · 2017Article
- Inequalities in cancer screening participation: examining differences in perceived benefits and barriers.Psycho-oncology · 2016Article
- Attitudes to incorporating genomic risk assessments into population screening programs: the importance of purpose, context and deliberation.BMC medical genomics · 2016Article
- 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 · 2015Article
- Attitudes and beliefs of non-participants in a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Article
- Reducing inequities in colorectal cancer screening in North America.Journal of carcinogenesis · 2014Review
- The development and testing of a brief ('gist-based') supplementary colorectal cancer screening information leaflet.Patient education and counseling · 2013Article
- Public attitudes towards genomic risk profiling as a component of routine population screening.Genome · 2013Article
- Blood RNA biomarker panel detects both left- and right-sided colorectal neoplasms: a case-control study.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2013Article
- 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.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal 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
participantsA 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).
resultsAn 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).
conclusionDeconstructing FOBt-based screening pointed to specific benefits and barriers which can advance research into public preferences of screening and educational materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.