How do people interpret information about colorectal cancer screening: Observations from a think-aloud study

Health Expectations

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 703-714

  Smith, Samuel G ^a   Vart, Gemma ^a   Wolf, Michael S ^b   Obichere, Austin ^c   Baker, Helen J ^d   Raine, Rosalind ^a   Wardle, Jane ^a   von Wagner, Christian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON HOSPITALS   (United Kingdom)

^d Community Health and Learning Foundation ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cancer screening; Colorectal cancer; Fuzzy trace theory; Literacy; Patient information; Think aloud

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COMPREHENSION; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION; PROCEDURES; PUBLICATION;

COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COMPREHENSION; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAMPHLETS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC;

EID: 84942294953     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/hex.12117     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Office for National Statistics. Mortality Statistics: Deaths Registered in 2010, England and Wales. London: Office for National Statistics, 2011.
2. General Register Office for Scotland. Deaths Time Series Data, Deaths in Scotland in 2011. General Register Office for Scotland, 2011. Available at: http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/theme/vital-events/deaths/time-series.html, accessed 30 July 2013.
3. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. Registrar General Annual Report. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, 2011. Available at: http://www.nisra.gov.uk/demography/default.asp50.htm, accessed 30 July 2013.
4. Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Irwig L, Towler B, Watson E. Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2007; CD001216.
5. von Wagner C, Baio G, Raine R et al. Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England. International Journal of Epidemiology, 2011; 40: 712-718.
6. The NHS Information Centre, Screening and Immunisations Team. Breast screening programme, England (2011-2012), 2013. Available at: http://catalogue.ic.nhs.uk/publications/screening/breast/bres-scre-prog-eng-2011-12/bres-scre-prog-eng-2011-12-rep.pdf, accessed 9 July 2013.
7. The NHS Information Centre, Screening and Immunisations Team. Cervical screening programme, England (2011-2012), 2013. Available at: http://catalogue.ic.nhs.uk/publications/screening/cervical/cerv-scre-prog-eng-2011-12/cerv-scre-prog-eng-2011-12-rep-v1.1.pdf, accessed 9 July 2013.
8. Department of Health. Bowel cancer screening: the facts, 2010. Available at: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/bowel/publications/bowel-cancer-the-facts.pdf, accessed 26th March, 2013.
9. von Wagner C, Good A, Whitaker KL, Wardle J. Psychosocial determinants of socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation: a conceptual framework. Epidemiologic Reviews, 2011; 33: 135-147.
10. Power E, van Jaarsveld C, McCaffery K, Miles A, Atkin W, Wardle J. Understanding intentions and action in colorectal cancer screening. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 2008; 35: 285-294.
11. von Wagner C, Good A, Smith SG, Wardle J. Responses to procedural information about colorectal cancer screening using faecal occult blood testing: the role of consideration of future consequences. Health Expectations, 2012; 15: 176-186.
12. Whitaker KL, Good A, Miles A, Robb K, Wardle J, von Wagner C. Socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer screening uptake: does time perspective play a role? Health Psychology, 2011; 30: 702-709.
13. von Wagner C, Semmler C, Good A, Wardle J. Health literacy and self-efficacy for participating in colorectal cancer screening: The role of information processing. Patient Education & Counseling, 2009; 75: 352-357.
14. Woodrow C, Watson E, Rozmovits L, Parker R, Austoker J. Public perceptions of communicating information about bowel cancer screening. Health Expectations, 2008; 11: 16-25.
15. Reyna VF. A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Medical Decision Making, 2008; 28: 850-865.
16. Peters E, Klein W, Kaufman A, Meilleur L, Dixon A. More is not always better: intuitions about effective public policy can lead to unintended consequences. Social Issues & Policy Review, 2013; 7: 114-148.
17. Cressey D. Informed consent on trial. Nature, 2012; 482: 16.
18. von Wagner C, Knight K, Steptoe A, Wardle J. Functional health literacy and health-promoting behaviour in a national sample of British adults. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2007; 61: 1086-1090.
19. Boxell EM, Smith SG, Morris M et al. Increasing awareness of gynecological cancer symptoms and reducing barriers to medical help seeking: does health literacy play a role? Journal of Health Communication, 2012; 17 (Suppl. 3): 265-279.
20. Ericsson KA, Simon HA. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.
21. Fox MC, Ericsson KA, Best R. Do procedures for verbal reporting of thinking have to be reactive? A meta-analysis and recommendations for best reporting methods. Psychological Bulletin, 2011; 137: 316-344.
22. Ericsson KA, Fox MC. Thinking aloud is not a form of introspection but a qualitatively different methodology: Reply to Schooler (2011). Psychological Bulletin, 2011; 137: 351-354.
23. Crain-Thoreson C, Lippman MZ, McClendon-Magnuson D. Windows on comprehension: reading comprehension processes as revealed by two think-aloud procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1997; 89: 579-591.
24. Nielsen J. Estimating the number of subjects needed for a thinking aloud test. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 1994; 41: 385-397.
25. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2006; 3: 77-101.
26. Strauss AL. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
27. Viswanath K. The communications revolution and cancer control. Nature Reviews Cancer, 2005; 5: 828-835.
28. Smith SK, Trevena L, Nutbeam D, Barratt A, McCaffery KJ. Information needs and preferences of low and high literacy consumers for decisions about colorectal cancer screening: utilizing a linguistic model. Health Expectations, 2008; 11: 123-136.
29. Zikmund-Fisher BJ. The right tool is what they need, not what we have a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication. Medical Care Research & Review, 2013; 70: 37S-49S.
30. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R. Statistical numeracy for health: a cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2010; 170: 462-468.
31. McCaffery K, Sheridan S, Nutbeam D et al. Addressing health literacy. 2012 Update of the international patient decision aids standards (IPDAS) collaboration's background document, chapter J 2012. Available at: http://ipdas.ohri.ca/resources.html. accessed 26 March 2013.
32. Reyna VF, Lloyd FJ. Physician decision making and cardiac risk: effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2006; 12: 179-195.
33. Elwyn G, Stiel M, Durand M-A, Boivin J. The design of patient decision support interventions: Addressing the theory-practice gap. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2011; 17: 565-574.
34. Hibbard JH, Peters E. Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annual Review of Public Health, 2003; 24: 413-433.
35. Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A, Hibbard JH, Mertz CK. Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Medical Care Research & Review, 2007; 64: 169-190.
36. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. A demonstration of "less can be more" in risk graphics. Medical Decision Making, 2010; 30: 661-671.
37. Dolan NC, Ferreira MR, Davis TC et al. Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among veterans: does literacy make a difference? Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2004; 22: 2617-2622.
38. Chapple A, Ziebland S, Hewitson P, McPherson A. What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): a qualitative study. Social Science & Medicine, 2008; 66: 2425-2435.
39. Von Wagner C, Semmler C, Power E, Good A. What matters when deciding whether to participate in colorectal cancer screening? The moderating role of time perspective. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 2010; 15: 20-30.
40. Paasche-Orlow MK, Wolf MS. Evidence does not support clinical screening of literacy. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2008; 23: 100-102.
41. Seligman HK, Wang FF, Palacios JL et al. Physician notification of their diabetes patients' limited health literacy. A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2005; 20: 1001-1007.
42. Williams K, Beeken RJ, Wardle J. Health behaviour advice to cancer patients: the perspective of social network members. British Journal of Cancer, 2013; 108: 831-835.
43. Smith SG, Wolf M, Obichere A, Raine R, Wardle J, von Wagner C. The development and testing of a brief ('gist-based') supplementary colorectal cancer screening information leaflet. Under review.
44. Garner M, Ning Z, Francis J. A framework for the evaluation of patient information leaflets. Health Expectations, 2012; 15: 283-294.