Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26301484›Full record

Trial reportSocial science & medicine (1982)2015

Anticipated regret to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening (ARTICS): A randomised controlled trial.

Ronan E O'Carroll, Julie A Chambers, Linda Brownlee, Gillian Libby, Robert J C Steele

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Social science & medicine (1982), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Interventions to Engage Affective Forecasting in Health-Related Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Testing autonomous motivation as a mechanism of anticipated regret intervention techniques for seasonal flu vaccination.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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.

Ronan E O'CarrollPsychology, School of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, Scotland, UK. Electronic address: reo1@stir.ac.uk.
Julie A ChambersPsychology, School of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, Scotland, UK. Electronic address: jac2@stir.ac.uk.
Linda BrownleeScottish Bowel Screening Centre, Kings Cross, Clepington Road, Dundee, DD3 8EA, Scotland, UK. Electronic address: linda.brownlee@nhs.net.
Gillian LibbyScottish Bowel Screening Centre, Kings Cross, Clepington Road, Dundee, DD3 8EA, Scotland, UK. Electronic address: g.libby@dundee.ac.uk.
Robert J C SteeleSurgery and Molecular Oncology, Ninewells Hospital, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, Scotland, UK. Electronic address: r.j.c.steele@dundee.ac.uk.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZH/4/793
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screening is important for early detection of colorectal cancer. Our aim was to determine whether a simple anticipated regret (AR) intervention could increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening. A randomised controlled trial of a simple, questionnaire-based AR intervention, delivered alongside existing pre-notification letters, was conducted. A total of 60,000 adults aged 50-74 years from the Scottish National Screening programme were randomised into the following groups: (1) no questionnaire (control), (2) Health Locus of Control questionnaire (HLOC) or (3) HLOC plus AR questionnaire. The primary outcome was return of the guaiac faecal occult blood test (FOBT). The secondary outcomes included intention to return test kit and perceived disgust (ICK). A total of 59,366 people were analysed as allocated (intention-to-treat (ITT)); no overall differences were seen between the treatment groups on FOBT uptake (control: 57.3%, HLOC: 56.9%, AR: 57.4%). In total, 13,645 (34.2%) individuals returned the questionnaires. Analysis of the secondary questionnaire measures showed that AR indirectly affected FOBT uptake via intention, whilst ICK directly affected FOBT uptake over and above intention. The effect of AR on FOBT uptake was also moderated by intention strength: for less-than-strong intenders only, uptake was 4.2% higher in the AR (84.6%) versus the HLOC group (80.4%) (95% CI for difference (2.0, 6.5)). The findings show that psychological concepts including AR and perceived disgust (ICK) are important factors in determining FOBT uptake. However, the AR intervention had no simple effect in the ITT analysis. It can be concluded that, in those with low intentions, exposure to AR may be required to increase FOBT uptake. The current controlled trials are presented at the website www.controlled-trials.com (number: ISRCTN74986452).

Indexed as

EmotionsOccult BloodAgedColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansIntentionMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesAnticipated regretColorectal cancerDisgustFaecal occult blood testScreening

Identifiers

PMID26301484
PMCPMC4576211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.