ArticleBMC research notes2014
Identification of gain- and loss-framed cancer screening messages that appeared in municipal newsletters in Japan.
Article in BMC research notes, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing risk-reducing surgery and aspirin decision aids for Lynch syndrome carriers using the person-based approach: A think-aloud interview study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Unpleasant but effective: Newspaper coverage of cancer screening and cancer in the Netherlands from 2010 to 2022.PloS one · 2025Article
- The co-development of personalised 10-year breast cancer risk communications: a 'think-aloud' study.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- 30+ years of media analysis of relevance to chronic disease: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Development of a Mobile Health Intervention to Promote Papanicolaou Tests and Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in an Underserved Immigrant Population: A Culturally Targeted and Individually Tailored Text Messaging Approach.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Article
- Epidemiologic Study on Social Determinants of Health: What's Next?Journal of epidemiology · 2015Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch suggests that cancer screening messages are more persuasive when framed in terms of the costs of not obtaining screening (i.e., loss-framed) than when framed in terms of the benefits of obtaining screening (i.e., gain-framed). However, to what extent these findings have been integrated into public health practice is unknown. To analyze message framing of cancer screening information, the present study examined message framing of cancer screening announcement articles that appeared in municipal newsletters published from 23 wards in central Tokyo, Japan. Two independent raters coded the articles. Gain- and loss-framed sentences in each article were identified, and based on what the sentences conveyed, articles were classified into gain-framed, loss-framed, mixed-framed, and non-framed.
resultInter-rater reliability was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.88). Of the 129 articles evaluated, the total number of gain-framed sentences was 87, while that of loss-framed sentences was six. The total number of gain-framed articles was 32 (24.8%) while that of loss-framed articles was zero (0%). Five (3.9%) articles were mixed-framed. Ninety-two (71.3%) articles were non-framed.
conclusionsCancer screening announcement articles of municipal newsletters were mostly non-framed or gain-framed in 23 Tokyo wards in Japan. The absence of loss-framed articles and only a small number of loss-framed messages indicate a missed opportunity to persuade readers to obtain cancer screenings. Loss-framed messages and articles need to be increased to enhance the persuasiveness of cancer screening information in municipal newsletters.
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.