Trial reportPloS one2020
A randomised on-line survey exploring how health condition labels affect behavioural intentions.
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesWe examined the effect of 'labels' versus 'descriptions' across four asymptomatic health conditions: pre-diabetes, pre-hypertension, mild hyperlipidaemia, and chronic kidney disease stage 3A, on participants' intentions to pursue further tests. There were four secondary objectives: 1) assessing confidence and satisfaction in their intention to test further; 2) revealing psychological drivers affecting intentions; 3) exploring whether intentions, confidence and satisfaction differ by label vs. description and health condition; and 4) producing a perceptual map of illnesses by label condition.
methodsPractitioner validated health-related scenarios were used. Two variants of each condition were developed. Participants were recruited through Qualtrics from Australia, Ireland and Canada and randomly assigned two 'labelled' or two 'descriptive' scenarios.
resultsThere was no significant difference in intentions to test between label and description conditions (95% CI -0.76 to 0.33 points, p = 0.4). Confidence and satisfaction were both positively associated with intentions: regression coefficient (β) for confidence β = 0.58 points (95% CI 0.49 to 0.68, p < .001) and for satisfaction 0.67 points (95% CI 0.57 to 0.77, p < .001). Predisposition to seek healthcare (β = 0.72; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.98), attributing illness to bad luck (β = -0.16 points; 95% CI -0.3 to -0.02), and concern about the health condition (β = 0.51; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.65) also significantly predicted intentions.
conclusionsUnlike studies investigating symptomatic illnesses, the disease label effect on behavioural intentions was not supported suggesting that reducing demand for medical services for borderline cases cannot be achieved by labelling. The average intention to test score was higher in this sample than previous symptomatic health-related studies and there was a positive relationship between increased intentions and confidence/satisfaction in one's decision. Exploratory insights suggested perceptions of the four labelled asymptomatic illnesses all shifted toward greater levels of dread and concern compared to their respective description condition.
trial registrationACTRN12618000392268.
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.