Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30428750›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical screening2019

Testing active choice for screening practitioner's gender in endoscopy among disinclined women: An online experiment.

Sandro T Stoffel, Yasemin Hirst, Alex Ghanouni, Lesley M McGregor, Robert Kerrison, Wouter Verstraete, Ailish Gallagher, Jo Waller, Christian von Wagner

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

Trial report in Journal of medical screening, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Sandro T StoffelResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Yasemin HirstResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Alex GhanouniResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Lesley M McGregorResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Robert KerrisonResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Wouter VerstraeteResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0269-6112
Ailish GallagherResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2326-5496
Jo WallerResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Christian von WagnerResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14134
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA large proportion of women have a preference for a same-gender endoscopy practitioner. We tested how information about practitioner gender affected intention to have bowel scope screening in a sample of women disinclined to have the test.

methodsIn an online experimental survey, women aged 35-54 living in England who did not intend to participate in bowel scope screening (N = 1060) were randomised to one of four experimental conditions: (1) control (practitioner's gender is unknown), (2) opposite-gender (male practitioner by default), (3) same gender (female practitioner by default), and (4) active choice (the patient could choose the gender of the practitioner). Intention was measured following the interventions.

resultsOf 1010 (95.3%) women who completed the survey, most were White-British (83.6%), and working (63.3%). Compared with control, both active choice and same-gender conditions increased intention among disinclined women (9.3% vs. 16.0% and 17.9%; OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.07-3.20 and OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.23-3.50). There were no differences in intention between the opposite-gender and control conditions (9.8% vs. 9.3%; OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.60-1.90) or the active choice and same-gender conditions (16.0% vs. 17.9%: OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.55-1.46, using same gender as baseline).

conclusionsOffering disinclined women a same-gender practitioner, either by choice or default, increased subsequent intention, while an opposite gender default did not negatively affect intention. Reducing uncertainty about gender of practitioner could positively affect uptake in women, and should be tested in a randomised controlled trial.

Indexed as

InternetPatient Acceptance of Health CarePhysician-Patient RelationsAdultEndoscopyEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationSex FactorsSurveys and Questionnairesattitude changecancer screeningDecision makingendoscopist gendergender preferencesonline experiment

Identifiers

PMID30428750
PMCPMC6484820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.