Trial reportJournal of behavioral medicine2015
The effect of a supplementary ('Gist-based') information leaflet on colorectal cancer knowledge and screening intention: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of behavioral medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing the Effectiveness of an Animated Decision Aid to Improve Recruitment of Control Participants in a Case-Control Study: Web-Based Experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster-randomised controlled trials.Lancet (London, England) · 2016Trial
- Using Facebook to Improve Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- How do young women approaching screening age interpret the NHS cervical screening leaflet? A mixed methods study of identifying interpretation difficulties, barriers, facilitators, and leaflet interpretation, engagement and future screening behaviour.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2024Article
- Bringing fictional characters to life: reflections on co-creating a comic book with members of the public.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Communication principles and practices for making shared decisions about renal replacement therapy: a review of the literature.Current opinion in nephrology and hypertension · 2021Review
- Knowledge of Potential Harms and Benefits of Tamoxifen among Women Considering Breast Cancer Preventive Therapy.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2020Article
- Article
- A cross-sectional survey assessing factors associated with reading cancer screening information: previous screening behaviour, demographics and decision-making style.BMC public health · 2017Article
- Inequalities in cancer screening participation: examining differences in perceived benefits and barriers.Psycho-oncology · 2016Article
- Using fuzzy-trace theory to understand and improve health judgments, decisions, and behaviors: A literature review.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2016Review
- A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey.BMC public health · 2016Article
- Using Specialist Screening Practitioners (SSPs) to increase uptake of the Bowel Scope (Flexible Sigmoidoscopy) Screening Programme: a study protocol for a feasibility single-stage phase II trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2016Article
- Piloting the Impact of Three Interventions on Guaiac Faecal Occult Blood Test Uptake within the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.BioMed research international · 2015Article
- Effects of Probabilities, Adverse Outcomes, and Status Quo on Perceived Riskiness of Medications: Testing Explanatory Hypotheses Concerning Gist, Worry, and Numeracy.Applied cognitive psychologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Guided by Fuzzy Trace Theory, this study examined the impact of a 'Gist-based' leaflet on colorectal cancer screening knowledge and intentions; and tested the interaction with participants' numerical ability. Adults aged 45-59 years from four UK general practices were randomly assigned to receive standard information ('The Facts', n = 2,216) versus standard information plus 'The Gist' leaflet (Gist + Facts, n = 2,236). Questionnaires were returned by 964/4,452 individuals (22 %). 82 % of respondents reported having read the information, but those with poor numeracy were less likely (74 vs. 88 %, p < .001). The 'Gist + Facts' group were more likely to reach the criterion for adequate knowledge (95 vs. 91 %; p < .01), but this was not moderated by numeracy. Most respondents (98 %) intended to participate in screening, with no group differences and no interaction with numeracy. The improved levels of knowledge and self-reported reading suggest 'The Gist' leaflet may increase engagement with colorectal cancer screening, but ceiling effects reduced the likelihood that screening intentions would be affected.
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.