Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30975450›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2019

The impact of descriptive norms on motivation to participate in cancer screening - Evidence from online experiments.

Christian von Wagner, Yasemin Hirst, Jo Waller, Alex Ghanouni, Lesley M McGregor, Robert S Kerrison, Wouter Verstraete, Ivo Vlaev, Monika Sieverding, Sandro T Stoffel

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Christian von WagnerUniversity College London, ResearchDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, 1-19 Torrington Place, WC1E 6BT, London, UK. Electronic address: c.wagner@ucl.ac.uk.
Yasemin HirstUniversity College London, ResearchDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, 1-19 Torrington Place, WC1E 6BT, London, UK.
Jo WallerUniversity College London, ResearchDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, 1-19 Torrington Place, WC1E 6BT, London, UK.
Alex GhanouniUniversity College London, ResearchDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, 1-19 Torrington Place, WC1E 6BT, London, UK.
Lesley M McGregorUniversity College London, ResearchDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, 1-19 Torrington Place, WC1E 6BT, London, UK.
Robert S KerrisonUniversity College London, ResearchDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, 1-19 Torrington Place, WC1E 6BT, London, UK.
Wouter VerstraeteUniversity College London, ResearchDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, 1-19 Torrington Place, WC1E 6BT, London, UK.
Ivo VlaevUniversity of Warwick, Warwick Business School, Scarman Road, CV4 7AL, Coventry, UK.
Monika SieverdingUniversity of Heidelberg, Institute of Psychology, Hauptstraße 47-51, 69117, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sandro T StoffelUniversity College London, ResearchDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, 1-19 Torrington Place, WC1E 6BT, London, UK.
University College London · GBHeidelberg University · DEUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14134Cancer Research UK C1418/A14134
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe current study tested in two online experiments whether manipulating normative beliefs about cancer screening uptake increases intention to attend colorectal screening among previously disinclined individuals.

methods2461 men and women from an Internet panel (Experiment 1 N = 1032; Experiment 2, N = 1423) who initially stated that they did not intend to take up screening were asked to guess how many men and women they believe to get screened for colorectal cancer. Across participants, we varied the presence/absence of feedback on the participant's estimate, as well as the stated proportion of men and women doing the screening test.

resultsAcross the two experiments, we found that receiving one of the experimental messages stating that uptake is higher than estimated significantly increased the proportion of disinclined men and women becoming intenders. While, we found a positive relationship between the communicated uptake and screening intentions, we did not find evidence that providing feedback on the estimate has an added benefit.

conclusionScreening intention can be effectively manipulated through a high uptake message. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Communication of high screening uptake is an easy and effective way to motivate disinclined individuals to engage in colorectal cancer screening.

Indexed as

InternetMotivationSocial NormsAdultColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIntentionMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedBehaviour changeCancer screeningDecision makingDescriptive norm informationHealth behaviourSocial norms

Identifiers

PMID30975450
PMCPMC6686210
OpenAlexW2935359073

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.